Cambridge City Council meeting - Mar 18, 2013 - AGENDA[Councillor Simmons was ABSENT due to injury]

CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as a member of the Cambridge Public Arts Commission for a term of 3-years effective Mar 5, 2013: David T. DeCelis

2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as a member of the GLBT Commission for a term of 2-years, to expire Feb 15, 2015: Bill Barnert

3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-06, regarding a report on the procedure for debris removal including hazardous waste from construction project sites.

4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-75, regarding a report on the feasibility of providing a map of long term parking spots for rent on the City's website.

5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-22, regarding a report on improving safety on the section of Memorial Drive that allows for legal parking which blocks the right lane.

6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-13, regarding a report on the possibility of banning tobacco sales in pharmacies and drug stores.

7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Planning Board for 3-year terms effective Mar 13, 2013:
Tom Sieniewicz (Full Member)
Steven Cohen (Full Member)
Catherine Preston Connolly (Associate Member)

Mar 18, 2013
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following persons as members of the Planning Board for 3-year terms effective Mar 13, 2013:

Tom Sieniewicz (Full Member)
Mr. Sieneiwicz was a member of the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal for ten years, serving as Chair for 7 years. He is an architect and currently a partner at NBBJ, an international firm of architects and urban designers. Mr. Sieneiwicz practices both as a city planning consultant and as an architect, with a foundation in promoting good design for public spaces, and has an extensive background in permitting, design and construction. Mr. Seineiwicz is also an active volunteer in the Cambridge community.

Steven Cohen (Full Member)
Mr. Cohen is an attorney and has extensive experience in real estate planning, regulation and development. He was a member of the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission for sixteen years, from 1992 to 2008, serving as Vice Chair for 5-years and Chair for 4-years.

Catherine Preston Connolly (Associate Member)
Ms. Preston Connolly is currently employed as a real estate and environmental attorney with expertise in city planning and environmental protection. Ms. Preston Connolly was formerly the Parking and Transportation Demand Management Planning Officer for the City of Cambridge, from 1999 to 2005. She received both her Masters Degree in City Planning and Bachelor of Science in Urban Studies and Planning from MIT, and has been a Cambridge resident for 15 years.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $50,000 of additional revenue to the General Fund Human Service Programs Other Ordinary Maintenance Account to be used to support the Amigos Community School which is in its first year of operations.

9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $20,700 in the General Fund Human Services Salary and Wages Account to the Human Service Programs Other Ordinary Maintenance Account to pay the final rent payment for the Multi-Service Center and Community Learning Center at 19 Brookline Street before moving to 5 Western Avenue in mid April.

10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of an Emergency Management Performance Grant from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency for $42,500 to the Grant Fund Fire Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will provide funds to purchase of a Motorola P25 portable radio console for use at the City's EOC and various locations during planned events and emergency situations with the Office of Emergency Preparedness and Coordination within the Fire Department and other City Departments with the City's new digital radio system.

11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant from the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) through the City of Boston's Office of Emergency Management for $28,031 to the Public investment Fund Fire Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to support critical infrastructure enhancement projects at various radio sites.

12. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $70,000 from General Fund Library Salary & Wages Account to the General Fund Library Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($65,000) and the General Fund Library Travel and Training (judgment & damages) account ($5,000) which will fund worker's compensation claims and unanticipated repairs at the Main Library

13. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-26, regarding the appointment of the following person as a member of the Cambridge Housing Authority for a term of 5-years to expire Sept 30, 2017: Victoria Bergland

Mar 18, 2013
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-26, I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following person as a member of the Cambridge Housing Authority for a term of 5-years to expire Sept 30, 2017:

Victoria Bergland
Ms. Bergland has been a member of the Lincoln Way Tenant Council for the past 4-years and is currently the President. She was elected as co-chair for Public Housing of the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT) in May, 2009 and is now serving her second term as co-chair. Ms. Bergland is highly familiar with CHA policies and has been an active member of ACT's Technical Assistance Committee. She has participated in working sessions with senior CHA staff on various policy issues including the Admissions and Continuing Occupancy Plan for Federal Public Housing and the Administrative Plan for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Additionally, Ms. Bergland has completed numerous trainings sponsored by the CHA on topics such as reasonable accommodations, hearing panels, and the low income housing tax credit program. She is a 40-year resident of Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-16, regarding a report on working with DCR to insure that oversize vehicles are not allowed to travel on Memorial Drive.

15. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as a Constable (Without Power) for a term of three years effective the first day of Jan, 2013: Christopher Rickman

16. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2013 and ending Mar 31, 2014.

City Manager Order
Agenda Item No. 16A Mar 18, 2013
ORDERED: That the following block rate for water consumption and sewer use in the City of Cambridge be in effect for the period beginning Apr 1, 2013 and ending Mar 31, 2014.

Annual Consumption*

FY13 Water Rate

FY14 Proposed Water Rate

FY13 Sewer Rate

FY14 Proposed Sewer Rate

Block 1

0 - 40 CcF

$3.02

$3.02

$7.86

$8.19

Block 2

41 - 400 CcF

$3.24

$3.24

$8.32

$8.67

Block 3

401 - 2,000 CcF

$3.44

$3.44

$8.93

$9.31

Block 4

2,001 - 10,000 CcF

$3.65

$3.65

$9.62

$10.02

Block 5

Over 10,000 CcF

$3.96

$3.96

$10.23

$10.66

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons; and be it further

ORDERED: That the Senior Citizens Discount Program as established in FY91 be continued. This program gives either a 15 percent or 30 percent discount on water/sewer bills, depending upon certain qualifications. Any resident who owns and occupies his/her own home and who is 65 or older on July 1 qualifies for the 15 percent discount.

This discount may not exceed $90 for the fiscal year. To qualify for the 30 percent discount, a homeowner must be 70 years of age or older and must have been granted the Clause 41C Elderly Real Estate Exemption, which is based on the demonstrated financial need. This discount may not exceed $180 for the fiscal year.

17. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the MIT-Kendall Square Zoning Petition.

18. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an additional appropriation of the ARRA Race to the Top (RTT) Funds from the U.S. Department of Education through the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in the amount of $83,184 to the School Grant Fund Salary & Wages account ($9,160), and Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($74,024) and will support the continuation of the alignment of the district's ELA, math, science and social studies curriculum to the revised MA Curriculum Frameworks, will train teachers in the new standards, implement the new state Administrator and Teacher evaluation system, continue to participate in DESE sponsored courses in coaching, subject areas, and mentoring, and continue to participate in DESE Curriculum committees.

ON THE TABLE
1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-09, regarding a report on the use of coal and on Cambridge becoming coal-free. [City Manager Agenda Number One of Mar 5, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Vice Mayor Simmons on Mar 5, 2012.]

2. Urge greater cooperation from the Cambridge Housing Authority to better serve the people of Cambridge. [Order Number Two of Apr 9, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Vice Mayor Simmons on Apr 9, 2012.]

3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and other relevant departments in order to present to the City Council a map of Cambridge that shows, by location and by date, all of the areas where construction is and will be taking place over the coming decade. [Order Number Four of Apr 9, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Toomey on Apr 9, 2012.]

5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-35, which requests a report on whether there were any public safety officers that falsified their emergency medical training re-certification while employed by the City of Cambridge. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on City Manager Agenda Number Two of May 21, 2012. Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Toomey on June 4, 2012.]

6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-63 regarding a report on safety issues at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Vassar Street. [City Manager Number Twenty-three of July 30, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on July 30, 2012.]

7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff and report back to the City Council on whether a tagging program could be implemented to notify owners of bicycles that have been removed from sign posts by the Department of Public Works and contact information for retrieval of said bicycle. [Order Number Fourteen of July 30, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor vanBeuzekom on July 30, 2012. Councillor Toomey recorded in the negative on Tabling.]

8. That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging the members of the Massachusetts Committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling to pass MA House Bill 4165, "An Act Relative to Speed Limits." [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Decker on Order Number Eleven of Nov 19, 2012. Order Number Eleven of Nov 19, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Toomey on Dec 3, 2012.]

9. That the City Manager is requested to work together with the appropriate city officials including the City Solicitor and report back to the City Council regarding modification of the ordinance (10.12.030) that links the awarding of a one yearlong Visitor Parking Permit per household to the purchase of a $25 Cambridge Resident Parking Permit. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Decker on Order Number Eight of Jan 28, 2013. Order Number Eight of Jan 28, 2013 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor vanBeuzekom on February 11, 2013.]

10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-90, regarding a report on Executive Session to discuss lawsuits. [City Manager Agenda Number Seven of Feb 25, 2013 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Feb 25, 2013.]

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. A constable bond was received from Douglas P. Moran for approval of the surety.

2. An application was received from Bourbon Coffee LLC. requesting permission for a sandwich board sign, four tables and sixteen chairs for restaurant seating in front of the premises numbered 1815 Massachusetts Avenue.

3. An application was received from Alberto Cavallo requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 16 Channing Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No neighborhood association for that area.Charter Right - vanBeuzekom

4. An application was received from Robert and Kristine Higgins requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 1 Highland Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No neighborhood association for that area.

5. An application was received from Phil Terzis, Abodez Development requesting permission to close the existing five curb cuts and replace them with two curb cuts at the premises numbered 563/603 Concord Avenue and 19 Wheeler Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. Approval has been received from the neighborhood association.Charter Right - vanBeuzekom

6. A zoning petition has been received from Charles D. Teague, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify existing law so that said law can be enforced by inserting text after Section 7.20 Illumination, with the existing text to be retained and labeled as Section 7.23 Lighting Restrictions for Residential Districts.Referred to Ordinance Committee and Plannning Board

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Walter J. Sullivan transmitting thanks for sharing his 90th Birthday.

2. A communication was received from Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street in opposition to the curb cut aplication of Albert Cavallo for a curb cut for 16 Channing Street.

3. A communication was received from Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street transmitting his comments to the MIT-PUD5 petition.

4. A communication was received from Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street regarding Order #11.

5. A communication was received from Joseph Aiello, 207 Charles Street in support of the MIT Zoning Petition.

6. A communication was received from Frank Solomon, 71 Vassal Lane requesting the City Council to withhold endorsement of the MIT Zoning Petition.

7. A communication was received from George Verhese, a faculty member at MIT in support of MIT building academic rather than commercial buildings in Kendall Square.

8. A communication was received from Janet Randall, 64 Granville Road urging delay of turf on Field #3 at Danehy Park.

9. A communication was received from John and Hilary Hopkins, 30 Winslow Street in opposition to plastic turf at Danehy Park.

10. A communication was received from Heather Soukup in support of Field #3 to remain grass.

12. A communication was received from Amy Sutherlend, 62 Fayerweather Street in opposition to turf at Field #3 at Danehy Park.

13. A communication was received from Niko Katsatos in support of conversion of grass field to truf at Danehy Park.

14. A communication was received from Karen Poage urging that the third field at Danehy Park be kept grass.

15. A communication was received from Mary Custic, 26 Bellis Circle in support of Field #3 at Danehy Park to turf.

16. A communication was received from Bryan Gould in opposition to Field #3 at Danehy Park being converted to turf.

17. A communication was received from Julie Croston urging a delay to any other conversion to turf at Danehy Park.

18. A communication was received from Susan DeAngelis in opposition to the use of turf on fields at Danehy Park.

19. A communication was received from Arthur Dion urging delay of any further grass to turf conversion.

20. A communication was received from Marty Bakal, 120 Reed Street in opposition to turf use at Danehy Park.

21. A communication was received from Karen Greenleaf, 17 Sherman Street in opposition to artificial turf replacing grass at Danehy Park.

22. A communication was received from Hunter Aldrich, 1A Field Street in opposition to conversion of Danehy Park's Field #3 to turf.

23. A communication was received from John Marshall, 17 Channing Street regarding a petition for a curb cut at 16 Channing Street.

24. A communication was received from Dara Safizadeh, 18 Channing Street in opposition to the curb cut petition for 16 Channing Street.

25. A communication was received from Fereydoun Safizadeh, 18 ChanningStreet in opposition to the curb cut application for 16 Channing Street.

26. A communication was received from Councillor Craig Kelley transmitting information of a study done on the risk of injury when playing on artificial turf.

27. A communication was received from Seth Teller, 281 Hurley Street transmitting comments from residents and users of fields relating to the use of artificial turf.

28. Petition filed by Seth Teller, et al., 281 Hurley Street requesting that Longy School of Music be kept open to the community.

29. A communication was received from Lilvye Thalo transmitting art work and letters from children who attend Longy School of Music requesting that Longy stay open.

30. A communication was received from Alexandra Moellmann, 28 Richard Road, Lexington transmitting a copy of an article she sent to the Boston Globe regarding the elimination of the preparatory and community programs at Longy School of Music.

31. A communication was received from Abram Klein, 20 Stearns Street transmitting his disappointment that Longy School of Music is abruptly abandoning its mission to educate local youth.

32. A communication was received from Jeremy Klein, 20 Stearns Street regarding the vote of the Board of Governors of the Longy School of Music of Bard College to discontinue all preparatory and continuing studies programs effective August 31, 2013.

33. A communication was received from James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place regarding the transportation of Ethanol.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution on the death of Rosemarie E. (Crosio) Deal. Councillor Maher

2. Retirement of Marie Mars from the School Department. Mayor Davis

3. Recognize March as "Red Cross Month." Vice Mayor Simmons

4. Happy 60th Birthday wishes to Barbie Hargrove. Vice Mayor Simmons

5. Condolences to the family of Mary Doyle, Director of Policy, Development, and External Relations at the Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership. Vice Mayor Simmons

6. Resolution on the death of A. Paul Flynn. Councillor Maher

7. Congratulations to Sean and Tiffany Hope on the birth of their son Noah. Vice Mayor Simmons

8. Congratulations to the Cantab Lounge for hosting the Boston Poetry Slam for over twenty years. Councillor Cheung

9. Congratulations to LinkCycle for being recognized as a Mass High Tech Startup Company to Follow by the Boston Business Journal. Councillor Cheung

10. Congratulations to clypd for being recognized as a Mass High Tech Startup Company to Follow by the Boston Business Journal. Councillor Cheung

11. Congratulations to Leigh O'Sullivan on the recent opening of her preschool. Councillor Cheung

12. Congratulations to Joan Ditzion on being awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. Councillor Cheung

14. Congratulations to the members of the Cambridge Warriors Men's Basketball Team on winning the state title at the annual Massachusetts State Special Olympics Basketball Championship. Mayor Davis

15. Thanks to Thomas W. Anninger for his years of service as a member of the Cambridge Planning Board. Councillor Maher

16. Congratulations to Professor Ernest Moniz on his nomination for the position of Secretary of the Department of Energy. Mayor Davis

17. Speedy recovery wishes to Renee Daniliuk. Mayor Davis

18. Resolution on the death of Joan Sciarappa. Councillor Maher

19. Congratulations to Milo Lynch for qualifying for the National Geographic Bee. Mayor Davis

20. Resolution on the death of Helen I. (White) Botelho. Councillor Toomey

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council and the Cambridge community on the current status, to the extent that it is possible, of the investigation into the June 3, 2012 murder of Charlene Holmes. Vice Mayor Simmons

2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation to determine the feasibility of implementing a pay-by-phone parking meter program in Cambridge, and report back to the City Council with recommendations as soon as possible. Vice Mayor SimmonsTabled - Kelley

3. That the University Relations Committee is requested to explore the impact that the termination of The Longy's Preparatory and Continuing Studies program will have on the Cambridge community. Councillor Cheung

4. That the City Council formally go on record asking the Mayor's Office to observe and participate in Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service on Apr 9, 2013. Vice Mayor Simmons

5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Election Commission as to plans to make the residents of the City of Cambridge aware of the upcoming special election and encourage them to participate, including signage, mailings, and voter registration efforts. Councillor CheungKelley voted NO

6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the various organizers of the Cambridge Science Festival as to whether it would be feasible to expand their banner advertising program up Main Street to Kendall Square to ensure that all interested parties are aware of the upcoming Cambridge Science Festival. Councillor Cheung

7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works as to the feasibility of installing fiber-optic conduits when doing sewer reconstruction and report back to the City Council. Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

8. That the City Manager is requested to contact Senator Warren, Congressman Capuano and Congressman Markey to seek support and information of measures Cambridge can take to prevent the transport of ethanol and protect and ensure the safety of our residents and report back to the City Council. Councillor Toomey

9. That the conversion of further soccer fields at Danehy Park to artificial turf be delayed until further study of the impact of artificial turf on player's health be completed along with a report which quantifies the decreased use of the more fragile grass playing fields throughout the city as a result of the installation of artificial turf playing fields be prepared by the Recreation Department. Councillor vanBeuzekomWithdrawn by Councillor vanBeuzekom with Unanimous Consent

10. That the City Manager is requested to offer City of Cambridge engineering expertise to the City of Belmont so that both cities may work together to ensure that the residents of Cambridge, Belmont and Arlington be protected from the impacts of flooding in Alewife SubWatershed and report back to the City Council. Councillor vanBeuzekomAmended

12. That the City Council conduct a Roundtable/Working Meeting on Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:30am in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss issues relating to the zoning petition filed by MIT-PUD-5. Mayor Davis

13. That before ordination of the proposed zoning amendment to create a new section 11.700 entitled Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses that the Community Development Department prepare language that the restriction be for a period of six months after the State Department of Public Health issues their regulations, rather than nine months. Councillor Cheung

14. That the proposed zoning amendment to create a new section entitled: 11.700 Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses be forwarded to the full City Council subject to the condition that before ordination the Community Development Department will provide language that the restriction be for a period of six months after the State Department of Public Health issues their regulations. Councillor Maher

15. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Department of Public Health to reconstitute the Tobacco Advisory Committee. Councillor Cheung

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 5, 2013 to discuss the long-term impact of grass versus artificial turf at Danehy Park.

2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 6, 2013 to receive a briefing on the recommendations of the C2 Report.

3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Feb 6, 2013 to discuss the zoning petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating a new Section 11.700 Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses.

4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 26, 2013 to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss the built form, including FAR, Height, Footplates, Open Space and Parking.

5. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Housing Committee, for a public meeting held on Feb 28, 2013 to receive an update on the status of the potential sale of 2 Mount Auburn Street.

6. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Mar 7, 2013 to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss Uses, Incentive Zoning, Community Fund, Housing and Sustainability. A presentation will be made by the Executive Director of Historical Commission on historic building.MIT/Kendall Petition passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (vanBeuzekom NO, Simmons ABSENT)

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor Henrietta Davis regarding a communication received from Kathy Born, Chair, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority supporting the "Rail With Trail" proposal for the Grand Junction rail line.

Wed, Mar 20
2:00pm The University Relations Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss the sale of 2 Mount Auburn Street by Harvard University, the discontinuance of the Longy School of Music Preparatory and Continuing Studies effective Aug 31, 2013 by Bard College and plans to tour MIT. (Sullivan Chamber)

Fri, Mar 22
9:30am The Ordinance Committee will conduct a roundtable working session on issues relating to the zoning petition filed by MIT-PUD-5. No public comment. No votes will be taken. Meeting will not be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Mar 27
5:30pm Roundtable/Working Meeting to discuss the report of the C2 Committee. No public comment. No votes will be taken. Meeting will not be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Mar 28
2:30pm The Housing Committee will conduct a public meeting to continue discussions on the status of the potential sale of 2 Mount Auburn Street. (Community Room, 2 Mount Auburn Street)
5:00pm The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee will conduct a joint public meeting with the Boston City Council to explore how long-term collaborative efforts between the cities of Cambridge and Boston can heighten the region's ability to retain talented students and to consider the impact on neighborhoods and long-term development. (Cahners Theater, Museum of Science, 1 Science Park)

Mon, Apr 1
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Apr 3
4:30pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Section 6.100 Bicycle Parking, and create a new definition for Bicycle Parking in Article 2.000, modify the Yard Standards in Article 5.000 as they relate to bicycle parking and modifying various sections of Article 6.000 to remove references to bicycle parking. This meeting to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 8
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 9
5:30pm The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee will conduct a public meeting to assess how other cities support neighborhood groups and examine how Cambridge could make use of these practices. (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Apr 10
10:00am The Public Safety Committee will conduct a public meeting to review the Cambridge Alert System and any other public notice system used for public safety issues. (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Apr 18
5:30pm The Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss the need and potential for providing computer and internet access to Cambridge's youth population. (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 22
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 23
5:30pm The Public Safety Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss enforcement of loud car radios and motorcycle mufflers. (Ackermann Room)

Mon, Apr 29
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 30
5:30pm The Public Safety Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss any and all issues related to gun safety, including the possibility of a gun buy-back program in Cambridge. (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 6
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 13
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 20
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 29
6:00pm The Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities Committee will conduct a public meeting for the purpose of developing measures through which immigrants in Cambridge can have improved access to computers and the internet. (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 3
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 10
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 17
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 24
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

TEXT OF ORDERSO-1 Mar 18, 2013
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council and the Cambridge community on the current status, to the extent that it is possible, of the investigation into the June 3, 2012 murder of Charlene Holmes.

O-2 Mar 18, 2013
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Cities across the country, including Washington, DC and Boston, MA, are in various stages of experimenting with the concept of pay-by-phone parking meters, in an effort to streamline the parking process, to better collect revenue, and to improve the overall experience of those who wish to frequent a city's stores and restaurants; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge, long established and renowned for being a leader of developing and adopting cutting-edge technology and citywide innovations, is a natural city in which to try implementing pay-by-phone parking meters, which could bring in additional revenue and could take some of the sting out of using parking meters; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation to determine the feasibility of implementing a pay-by-phone parking meter program in Cambridge, and report back to the City Council with recommendations as soon as possible.

O-3 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The Longy School of Music of Bard College recently announced its plan to discontinue Longy's Preparatory and Continuing Studies effective Aug 31, 2013; and
WHEREAS: Such an effort would end part-time private lessons, classes, and ensembles offered to 700 children and 200 adults in and around Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the University Relations Committee be and hereby is requested to explore the impact that the termination of such a program will have on the Cambridge community.

O-4 Mar 18, 2013
VICE MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: On Apr 9, 2013, municipalities across the country shall be observing the first ever Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service in an effort to highlight the importance of civic engagement and the benefits of providing service to our neighbors. Such acts routinely bind neighborhoods together, deepen the bonds across communities, and help civic leaders to better address issues that impact the entire community; and
WHEREAS: From neighborhood clean-up and beautification projects, to events geared at assisting the less fortunate, to those who host neighborhood meetings and get-togethers, to less visible, everyday efforts of those who give of themselves to help their friends and neighbors; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council formally go on record asking the Mayor's Office to observe and participate in Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service on Apr 9, 2013.

O-5 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Political participation, especially in the form of voting, is essential to a democracy; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge will soon have a special election for Senator in Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator John F. Kerry; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Election Commission as to their plans to make the residents of the City of Cambridge aware of the upcoming special election and encourage them to participate, including signage, mailings, and voter registration efforts and to report back to the City Council.

O-6 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Science Festival is an annual celebration of science, technology, engineering and math in our region for kids and adults of all ages to spur creativity and interest in STEM-related fields; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Science Festival features a variety of exhibitions, concerts, plays, workshops and more over a span of ten days at a variety of locations around the city; and
WHEREAS: Expanding community awareness of the Cambridge Science Festival will undoubtedly generate buzz and excitement in the STEM community and encourage a new generation of learners to explore the possibility of a career in the sciences; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the various organizers of the Cambridge Science Festival as to whether it would be feasible to expand their banner advertising program up Main Street to Kendall Square to ensure that all interested parties are aware of the upcoming event and report back to the City Council.

O-7 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
WHEREAS: The need for reliable, affordable high-speed connections to the internet in communities has become increasingly crucial to attract and cultivate jobs; and
WHEREAS: In the past, residents have expressed a strong interest in having more broadband network options available at faster speeds and affordable prices; and
WHEREAS: Cities such as Jacksonville, Florida, have integrated sewer reconstruction with municipal broadband implementation by installing fiber-optic conduits around the exterior of new sewer pipes; and
WHEREAS: Such a construction ensures that all commercial and residential buildings will have access to these two independent services and would allow the City of Cambridge to deploy two systems for the cost of one; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works as to the feasibility of installing fiber-optic conduits when doing sewer reconstruction and report back to the City Council.

O-8 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) recently shared their Study of the Safety Impacts of Ethanol Transportation by Rail on six communities including Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The Grand Junction Railroad was added as an alternative route for transportation of Ethanol. This is in addition to the previously considered Fitchburg Line that runs through North Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The addition of a Grand Junction option increases the impact on the Cambridge population, making it the highest impacted community of all the study areas; and
WHEREAS: Ethanol transportation is federally regulated and options to prevent the transport of ethanol through heavily populated areas are limited; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to contact Senator Warren, Congressman Capuano and Congressman Markey to seek support and information of measures Cambridge can take to prevent the transport of ethanol and protect and ensure the safety of our residents and report back to the City Council.

O-9 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has huge demands for the use of playing fields throughout the city; and
WHEREAS: The natural grass playing fields are difficult to maintain throughout the year and rainy seasons in particular; and
WHEREAS: Two playing fields at Danehy Park will be converted to artificial turf in FY13 in order to improve field usability; increase playing time on these artificial turf fields; and potentially reduce burden on other playing fields throughout the city; and
WHEREAS: Artificial turf infill is made from recycled tires and this infill material may contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, benzene, benzothiazole and other toxic derivatives that may present a health risk to residents; and
WHEREAS: In July 2012, environmental groups requested the US Consumer Products Safety Commission study this issue further; and
WHEREAS: The San Francisco and Maryland Chapters of the Sierra Club have called for a ban on toxic substances in play spaces; and
WHEREAS: The Precautionary Principle applies to situations in which an action has a "suspected risk" of causing harm to the public or to the environment. In these situations, the guiding principle is to proceed -- as if there is actual harm as opposed to "waiting until harm is shown to exist"; and
WHEREAS: It is in the best interest of the Cambridge residents to make decisions using the Precautionary Principle; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the conversion of further soccer fields at Danehy Park to artificial turf be delayed until further study of the impact of artificial turf on player's health be completed and shared with the City Council; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Assistant City Manager for Human Services to confer with the Director of Recreation to prepare a report which quantifies the decreased use of the more fragile grass playing fields throughout the city as a result of the installation of artificial turf playing fields.

O-10 Mar 18, 2013 - See Substitution below
COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council has passed numerous orders over the past thirteen years noting the natural resource value of the Belmont Uplands located in the Alewife SubWatershed; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council has made numerous requests to the City Manager to protect these watershed/woodlands located in Cambridge and Belmont; and
WHEREAS: The Belmont Conservation Commission in an effort to protect this wetland and habitat has denied a developer-applicant's request for a permit to develop in this area; has appealed the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to override their denial; and is in the process of participating, with other interveners, in adjudicatory hearings at the state level; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge will very likely be impacted by all large development projects constructed within this sensitive floodplain (which is located in adjacent Belmont -- based on the hydrology of the Alewife SubWatershed); and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council applauds the heroic efforts of the Belmont Conservation Commission to protect its residents, and those of Cambridge and Arlington, from anticipated regional flooding due to the impacts of increased climate change; and
WHEREAS: Presently, the City of Cambridge is reviewing, together with a panel of experts, the cities' Climate Change Vulnerabilities with an expected report to be released in 18 months time; and
WHEREAS: This Climate Change Vulnerabilities Report will likely include provisions to protect vulnerable open space near wetlands and floodplains with suggestions to work regionally; and
WHEREAS: The Belmont Uplands which is essentially a "storm water sponge" for the Alewife SubWatershed and is a vulnerable open space near wetlands and floodplains; and
WHEREAS: The efforts made by the Belmont Conservation Commission to preserve this watershed/woodlands may not be sustained due to a recent conclusion of the Belmont Selectmen; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Department of Public Works has extensive engineering expertise in storm water management and the design of storm water retention structures; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to offer City of Cambridge engineering expertise to the City of Belmont so that both cities may work together to ensure that the residents of Cambridge, Belmont and Arlington be protected from the impacts of flooding in Alewife SubWatershed and report back to the City Council on this work; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Chairperson Mark A Paolillo; the Belmont Board of Selectman and the Belmont Conservation Commission on behalf of the entire Cambridge City Council.

O-10 AMENDED ORDER Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council has passed numerous orders over the past thirteen years noting the natural resource value of the Belmont Uplands located in the Alewife SubWatershed; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council has made numerous requests to the City Manager to protect these watershed/woodlands located in Cambridge and Belmont; and
WHEREAS: The Belmont Conservation Commission in an effort to protect this wetland and habitat, in accordance with the state's Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), has denied a developer-applicant's request for a permit to develop in this area and has appealed the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to override their denial; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge will very likely be impacted by all large development projects constructed within this sensitive floodplain (which is located in adjacent Belmont) based on the hydrology of the Alewife SubWatershed; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council applauds the heroic efforts of the Belmont Conservation Commission to protect its residents, and those of Cambridge and Arlington, from anticipated regional flooding due to the impacts of increased climate change; and
WHEREAS: Presently, the City of Cambridge is reviewing, together with a panel of experts, the cities' Climate Change Vulnerabilities with an expected report to be released in 18 months time; and
WHEREAS: This Climate Change Vulnerabilities Report will likely include provisions to protect vulnerable open space near wetlands and floodplains with suggestions to work regionally; and
WHEREAS: The Belmont Uplands which is essentially a "storm water sponge" for the Alewife SubWatershed and is a vulnerable open space near wetlands and floodplains; and
WHEREAS: The Belmont Conservation Commission and the Board of Selectmen deserve our thanks for their legal action to protect our mutual resources and to uphold the WPA; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Chairperson Mark A Paolillo, Belmont Board of Selectman and James Roth, Chair Belmont Conservation Commission on behalf of the entire Cambridge City Council.

O-11 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR VANBEUZEKOM
WHEREAS: The residents of Cambridge are very interested in the details of the MIT Zoning Petition in Kendall Square that is requesting a new zoning area called PUD-5; and
WHEREAS: Multiple public overview Ordinance Committee Meetings have been held to discuss this petition and public interest in this zoning petition remains high; and
WHEREAS: The next public Ordinance Committee Meeting has been scheduled using the roundtable format, and in the morning, which is a time that is not convenient for many of the working public to attend; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That a one-time suspension of Council Rule 23B be allowed, for the broadcast of the Fri, Mar 22nd, 9:30am Ordinance CommitteeCity Council Roundtable/Working Meeting (a meeting to discuss issues relating to the MIT PUD-5 zoning petition).

O-12 Mar 18, 2013
MAYOR DAVIS
ORDERED: That the City Council conduct a Roundtable/Working Meeting on Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:30am in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss issues relating to the zoning petition filed by MIT-PUD-5.

O-13 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
ORDERED: That before ordination of the proposed zoning amendment to create a new section 11.700 entitled Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses that the Community Development Department prepare language that the restriction be for a period of six months after the State Department of Public Health issues their regulations, rather than nine months.

O-14 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR MAHER
ORDERED: That the proposed zoning amendment to create a new section entitled: 11.700 Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses be forwarded to the full City Council subject to the condition that before ordination the Community Development Department will provide language that the restriction be for a period of six months after the State Department of Public Health issues their regulations.

O-15 Mar 18, 2013
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Department of Public Health to reconstitute the Tobacco Advisory Committee.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTSCommittee Report #1
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee held a public meeting on Tues, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:07pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the long-term impact of grass versus artificial turf at Danehy Park.

Councillor Cheung opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He stated that concerns about this issue were brought to his attention a few weeks ago, and that it is his desire to get the facts on the table to resolve any remaining requests for information. This hearing is a fact finding mission, as the Parks budget has been adopted and cannot be changed by this committee. City administration will provide background and context about what the decision means, then there will be public comment. The e-mails received will be made part of the record.

Deputy City Manager Rossi gave an overview about Danehy Park. Danehy Park was designed in 1980 with a three-year community input process to determine its ultimate use. The city had a lack of a large soccer field and as the design developed, between 4-40 feet of landfill cover was added to the park. Danehy Park was capped before regulations were created on capping landfills. Once the capping regulations were developed, the City was given approval by the state to open the park. The need to contain runoff in Danehy Park and allow for slow drainage greatly impacted the use of the Park. Because of the slow drainage the fields will always have a wet condition and be unusable. Although maintenance plans were developed to combat this issue, the soccer fields are constantly run down. It costs $20,000 for the maintenance of four fields and the fields are taken out of service. It is hard to maintain the soccer field because of the constant use. The City was asked to make the site more useable
for youth soccer and sports. An architect was consulted and recommended that artificial turf be used as a safer alternative. In 2004 Mayor Sullivan convened a committee of users and City staff to have other fields converted to artificial turf. This was approved by the City Council and the City is ready to go forward. The City is not planning to use artificial surface for the parks across the City; it is not in the financial or capital plans. This achieves the goal of usage; it drains well and is safer.

At this time Councillor Cheung opened the meeting to comments by the City Council.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that as a means of fact finding was a Request For Proposal sent out. Mr. Ryder replied that bids are being reviewed now. Mr. Rossi stated that the City has paid for the design. City Manager Healy stated that there is timeliness for the use of the fields. The work will begin in the spring to be completed by mid July.

Public comment began at 4:18pm on motion of Councillor Cheung.

Andrew Farrar, President, Cambridge youth soccer, stated that the quality of athletic fields is not a maintenance issue; it is a usage issue. He submitted a prepared statement.

Sandy Gould, Coach and Parent, 23 Fairmont Street, stated her support for the conversion of grass to turf. Cambridge has a huge number of parks and they do get beat up. Her son played on a turf field at Danehy and she stated that it is easier to play on the field because of the material. It is a huge benefit to families. Kids love to play on the turf. They come and they play longer at the field. This makes for healthier kids. The heat issue can be managed.

Phil Fousek, Boys Varsity Soccer Coach, stated that adding turf will allow students to play in bad weather and to have a state-of-the-art soccer field. He submitted a prepared statement.

Ryan Tracy, soccer player, stated that he supports the turf field. The goal is to reach an elite level for soccer and to become a better team. Injuries occur more frequently on the grass fields. With turf, games do not have to be cancelled because of weather.

Susan Ruff, Director, CYS, stated her support for the turf fields at Danehy Park. She schedules the playtime on the fields. When Danehy Park is wet it throws a big wrench in the scheduling of games. We need dependable fields. Youth soccer will benefit with two more turf fields.

Paul Gregory, CRLS and CYS Coach, stated that he would love the kids to play on smooth grass fields, but there is never any grass on the goal. This does not work. It was a complete waste within one year's time after the fields are maintained. Soccer is a year round activity and grass fields just do not stand up. The only solution, in his opinion, is bare earth. He supports conversion to turf.

John Kernochan, CYS Coach, parent and player, stated there is no choice but to put in turf fields. This is not just a soccer issue. This field is a large rectangular field that has a large demand. Fields have been eliminated in the City: 2-3 fields in East Cambridge, l field in Central Square and 2 fields in North Cambridge. Demand for the use of the fields should be estimated and plans developed for how the demand can be accommodated. Fields were lost for conservation. There are only 5-6 full size fields. There is a large demand of sports with a small supply of fields. There is no soccer field in East Cambridge; this should be rectified. He urged the City to invest where more fields can be cited. Northpoint could have room for a field.

Tom Rawson, 121 Clay Street, stated that he was surprised about the controversy around this issue. He is a science teacher and he did research - there is not much of an option. His daughter is a soccer player. We do not have grass fields; we have fields that are ½ grass and ½ mud. His research supports the fact that you cannot support the current usage and demand. The right solution for these fields is turf. It is better for players and for the scheduling of the games.

Chris Aufiero, Athletic Director, CRLS, stated that he supports turf fields for the following reasons: less injuries, less maintenance of the fields; grass fields are taken out of use for maintenance; less weather related cancellations and turf fields will benefit the two upper schools.

Phoebe Reuben, CRLS girl's varsity soccer captain, stated that she favors turf. The overuse of the fields will always be an issue no matter how much they are maintained. There are rocks and sands with grass fields. She felt someone would get hurt playing on the field with unstable grass.

Janet Goldman, teacher at CRLS and head CRLS girls' soccer coach, stated that she supports turf for two fields at Danehy. The New England climate is not feasible for playing on grass. The artificial turf has improved. She stated that as a coach she would not let kids play in unsafe conditions regarding heat on turf. Turf fields are here; college fields have turf. She requested that the fields get built in a timely fashion.

Brian Conway stated he supports the conversion of the two fields to turf. Referees do not like to work on bad fields. Turf fields are safer than grass. A half-day of rain can ruin the field for the season. More consistency and better player confidence is seen with turf fields.

Steve Nadis, Cambridge Youth Soccer coach for seven years, stated that he has run practices on many fields. Fields are used a lot outside of the school and sports system. Magazine Beach has potholes in the fall. He supports turf field conversion at Danehy and he hopes that other fields will be converted. It is not natural to maintain a grass field in New England weather.

Joseph O'Loughlin, an assistant baseball coach for five years, spoke about the fields in other communities. Astroturf fields are nicer to play on. Geese do not stay long on turf fields so there are no goose droppings. He favored more fields.

Doug Brown, 32 Gurney Street, thanked Mr. Rossi for the new grass field on Huron Avenue. He spoke about the benefits of turf. Heat is less of an issue than the time lost due to rain. He stated that a good grass field costs $45,000 per year. He spoke about usage of Gillette stadium. NFL fields get sodden after each use. A turf field can handle ten times the usage of grass. This relates to ten times more exercise. There is no issue; it is clear what should be done.

Rustam Booz, 27 Lawn Street, stated that Cambridge does not have enough green fields to support the demand placed on them. He supports turf fields as outlined in is communication.

Seth Teller, 281 Hurley Street, opposed putting turf on the fields. There are four soccer playing fields. There is a plan to cover 100 percent of soccer fields with turf at a cost of $2 million. This process is flawed; there was no public process. He wishes to play on grass. Turf is harder on the body. Turf is toxic and an incubator for MRSA. He spoke about the current use of the fields and the maintenance. He has requested a freedom of information request on the maintenance of the fields. There is no record of debits being repaired daily. He stated that the City should try less drastic measure - less use and better maintenance. Turf is not cost free. Brushing is required. Should soccer users trump all other users? Turf is tough on the joints of older athletes. He wanted some of the grass kept. He asked for a balanced approach. He requested a compromise - two grass and two turf fields. He submitted his comments.

Mr. Teller also read a communication from Olivier Appaix advocating for a balanced approach.

Richard Frierman, 39 Kelley Street, former Cambridge Youth Soccer president, stated that his kids played soccer and he spoke about maintenance of the fields. His son plays on field three and though there was evidence of attempts to maintain the field, it was not working. His daughter played in field four and had no problem playing on turf. An injury was sustained in field two due to a rut. He spoke about an opposing team playing on field four. They were blown away playing on turf. This feeling is not the same on field one. He spoke about cancellation due to weather. He requested that fields one, two, and three should be converted. He sent a prepared statement.

Larry Childs, 22 Corporal Burns Road, spoke about heat and the turf. He stated that there are tremendous winter benefits. It is important to have the dialogue of the pros and cons on turf fields. He is strongly in favor of the conversion to turf. He emphasized the fitness benefits for youth and adults. A healthier population will have a lower carbon footprint and there will be a net gain in healthiness. This context needs to be expanded on the issue of health and fitness.

Sara Bell, 19 Moller Avenue, stated that she moved to Cambridge because of the green space. She thinks that the turf conversion is a tremendous asset for extended use of the fields.

Duncan MacArthur, 245 Grove Street, coach of youth soccer, stated his support for turf fields. The turf helps to develop the skill of the younger athletes. He suggested more turf fields will take the stress off the green fields. He submitted a prepared statement.

Ellen Aronson, 121 Fayerweather Street, stated that she has two daughters who are athletes. She stated that she is opposed to turf fields. The turf fields are hot, harsh, ugly, dirty and have off gases from recycled tires. She spoke about athletes opposed to playing on turf fields. Canadian soccer has refused to go to Vancouver because of the turf field. Playing on a plastic surface in hot weather is not healthy. Massachusetts has had the warmest year on record in 2012 and more natural areas are needed to mitigate. Every aspect of our children's lives does not have to organized and homogenized. She supports a natural green field. She submitted a written statement.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, spoke about no soccer fields in East Cambridge. The availability of soccer fields are on the other side of the City and this effects who plays as kids get older. There is a huge demand for soccer fields. These facilities need to be made more widely available in Cambridge, but the City refuses to buy open space in Cambridge.

A communication was received from Ronnie Millar, 31 Jackson Street, requesting that a full risk assessment be done on the soil at Danehy Park and a study be done on the impact of installing a turf field over landfill.

Councillor Cheung stated that he wanted the City to address the issues of injuries, fields being eliminated and chemicals.

Deputy City Manager Rossi stated that a world-renowned firm, Camp Dresser and McKee, designed the fields. Aerial photos of Danehy Park were provided. This firm researched the products used on the fields. The Mass DEP approves anything that is used on Danehy. The drainage is collected and taken to Bellis Circle wetlands and goes back into the ground. There are no bad reports for leaching. Since 1981 the City has added 65-70 acres of parkland. Acres were taken away from the golf course. Several acres of land were created at Lusitania. The City is asking to create seven acres of turf land. Relating to soccer fields in East Cambridge he stated that he proposed a soccer field at Donnelly Park and the community was against the proposal. Greenrose Park was purchased for $2.1 million. Cambridge is the only community that made a deal with DCR to care for Magazine Beach. He stated that in 2000 the City Council passed a regulation to use only natural herbicides to maintain the
natural turf. Other communities around Cambridge have tried to mirror Danehy Park; this added 50 acres of land to open space. The City is very committed to open space. He spoke about the budgetary process in the capital plan and the budget on this issue.

Councillor Kelley stated that he will defer the judgment to DEP on heat and landfill. He asked if when this is done are we making sure there is testing. Mr. Rossi responded that every truckload of fill at Danehy was tested. The City Council did approve this item in Apr as part of the capital plan. He is surprised that we are having this discussion.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that it is always good to have a dialogue. It makes more sense to have something more durable. She wanted a tree canopy around the area, but she does not know if with the capping trees can be planted. Mr. Rossi stated that this analysis has been done and where trees could be planted they were planted. Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if the baseball field could be converted to more use. Mr. Ryder, Recreation Director, stated that there are not a lot of baseball fields and there are not a lot of dual use fields. Mr. Rossi stated that the outfields in Danehy Park are the wettest area. Gore Street and Ahern Field are used for soccer. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that in the capital budget field four will be converted in 2014. She stated that after having two turf fields, she would like to wait and see before conversion of another field to turf. Mr. Rossi stated that this will be assessed. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that regarding the heat issue she
suggested that the specs state natural green because the lighter the turf color the less it will absorb the heat. She suggested a grey field. Mr. Rossi stated that this question will be asked to see if it will make sense. Mr. Healy stated that the City is ready to award the bid, and the specs cannot be changed to meet the schedule of work to be done. Mr. Farrar commented that the color of turf and infill does not change the heat issue. Councillor vanBeuzekom commented on the issue of maintenance. Mr. Rossi responded that whatever the City does, it can be done better. He rejects the notion that the fields are not maintained. The fields are under city and contract maintenance. The effort is good.

Brian Murphy, Assistant City Manager for Community Development distributed the report of the Central Square Advisory Committee, which consisted of 21 members appointed by the City Manager. A document entitled "Central Square and Osborne Triangle Plan and Recommendations" was distributed and can be viewed on the link below or large scale copies are available at the City Clerk's Office. http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/~/media/ED0F407222814071B6278E6EA2250DB1.ashx. The goals were listed as:
• Increasing the housing stock and promote residential diversity;
• Public places to build community;
• Retail, cultural and non-profit diversity;
• Connecting people to the square; and
• To continue promoting sustainability in planning, design and development.

Also distributed was a handout showing the district height limits under the existing zoning and under the C2 proposal.

Councillor Reeves commented that this meeting was beneficial because the City Council has not officially received the Central Square Advisory Committee report. He also wanted the K2 report.

Iram Farooq, Senior Planner, CDD, reviewed the process and listed themes as enhancing identity, strength in diversity and culture, increasing housing supply supporting and retaining affordability, support for small local businesses and non-profits and public space transformations. The zoning strategies were to move building heights and mass away from the neighborhood edges. Municipal parking lots, valuable assets, could be converted into something wonderful.

Randa Ghattas stated that the impact would be on Mass. Avenue. FAR would be added only for housing. Height variation would be added. By avoiding blocky buildings at low height allows ground-level public and lower building heights along neighborhood edges. Mayor Davis expressed concern about height especially on buildings between Bishop Allen Drive and Mass. Avenue. Increased height may be closer than what people expect. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that the attempt is to keep buildings thin, but needs to go back somewhat. He gave an example of housing front on the Saltonstall Building on Cambridge Street in Boston; it is not part of the visual landscape. Low buildings allow tall buildings behind to disappear from view at the street level. Esther Hanig spoke about the importance of open space within the project and not having tunnels. Mr. Ming-Tai Huh stated that the additional height is to accommodate more housing because there is a housing shortage. Councillor Cheung asked how you know
that the height will provide the density and support the retail. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that the revenue generated by housing development is less than for office or lab space, therefore more density is necessary to make housing viable.. Ms. Ghattas commented that there is a variety of heights that will increase density and keep the variety. The cost of development is prohibitive before you get to 12 stories; there is no incentive.

Councillor Maher asked for a walk through on how the vision on the display boards actually could happen with multiple property owners and City-owned parking lots. Ms. Farooq stated that the process is complex and has to work whether or not the parking lots are included. Saul Tannenbaum stated that parking lots are major leverage for the City and if deployed correctly changes the economics of future development. He urged the City Council to do something bold such as a long-term lease or retaining development rights. Councillor Reeves stated that the City has not discussed its lots, but there are other lots such as Quest and Vail Court that should also be discussed. Robin Lapidus stated that the issue is people over parking. There are not enough people living here to create what is wanted. Councillor Maher stated that putting city lots into the mix could be interesting. Should incentives similar to those that were designed and approved by the City Council as used at the Clem buildings
on Sidney Street be revisited? Mr. Boyes-Watson explained that the goal was to create a lot of housing conversion, but the incentives were not enough and therefore single story old industrial buildings were not redeveloped. If there is not enough density or money they will not be converted. He suggested dialog with the new owners of Quest. Ms. Farooq stated that this is balancing what works for the whole City. Councillor Reeves stated that some sites will not be developed because of the owners. There is development in play at Twining Properties. Mr. Flack wanted to bring economics into the discussion. He did not know if incentives are enough for middle income housing. Councillor Cheung asked if incentives are enough to flip to housing. He is happy with the principle, but is it enough. Ms. Ghattas responded that this needs to be figured out. Bishop Allen Drive is a horrible space. It is not safe to walk because of the cars. If housing and retail were on the ground level it would be
transformed. Mayor Davis added that Green Street is worse with the loading docks, security fences and blank walls. Ms. Ghattas suggested eliminating the library and the parking lot on Green Street. The parking lots should be put on the table now stated Mr. Boyes-Watson. The City owns the Bishop Allen lot, the library, the Falafel lot and the Quest lot. Mr. Tannenbaum stated that the boundary of the study was Green Street, but he would advocate "nuking" the library and starting over.

Councillor Maher asked if the City has to put out an IFB or RFP to redevelop the parking lots, what would be the timeframe and council there be a role for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA). The CRA has experience in redeveloping areas and is set up in a way that may be beneficial. Ms. Brown stated that there exists an opportunity with the Quest property because it abuts a public parking lot. Mr. Simon suggested talking to the owners before inviting proposals.

Mayor Davis asked what the process is; this is contentious. This should be discussed one topic at a time.

Mr. Tannenbaum stated that the community education piece has not been done. The thought process has changed and people are fighting things proposed 20 years ago.

Councillor Reeves stated that what is needed is a CRA type process that is focused and highly specialized. Robin Lapidus informed the committee that there is traction in owners meetings because of C2. The Maya Lin building will send a message that what you do here is important.

In conclusion Mayor Davis stated that she would schedule another meeting on C2 with Goody Clancy for Mar 27 or 28th.

Councillor Maher thanked all those present for their attendance.

The meeting adjourned at 7:38pm on motion of Mayor Davis.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Feb 6, 2013 beginning at 4:40pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating a new Section 11.700 Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses.

Councillor Maher convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that this meeting is being recorded by audio and visual devices. He stated that the format of the meeting will be that City Manager Robert Healy will give brief comments and Jeff Roberts from CDD will report on the Planning Board recommendation. The City Council has not officially received the recommendation of the Planning Board. The recommendation will appear on the Agenda for the Feb 11th meeting.

City Manager Robert W. Healy stated that when the proposal was submitted to the City Council it was based on multiple discussions with city agencies, health, safety, prevention coalition, advocates for the petition and concerned persons with the implementation of the statute and thus the recommendation of the zoning petition that was placed before the City Council. The State Department of Public Health will need an extension beyond May 1, 2013 to promulgate the regulations for the implementation of this statute. It makes it clear that the enactment of the 9 month moratorium is needed so that there can be a clear understanding what the regulations will be and make recommendations to the City Council while being cognizant of the intent of voters in the last election. This is a complicated issue. There are complexities to the statute that were not fully abled to be easily portrayed by the simple summary of the ballot question and now is the time for legislative bodies in Massachusetts
communities to take a close look at what are the appropriate methodology to deal with this statute. There was a workshop on this topic at the Mass. Municipal Association, which the City Manager attended. The handout from a Framingham Law Office was a copy of Mr. Healy's letter to the City Council with the proposed zoning ordinance as an appropriate way of dealing with the uncertainty of the pending issue and the DPH regulations. The City Council does not have a formal submission of the Planning Board recommendation as it was received by him yesterday. A copy of the recommendation was provided. The issue is should the zoning language for the proposed interim restriction be in place for a minimum of nine months or a maximum of nine months assuming the superseding regulations have not been yet enacted. As a guideline once the regulations are enacted by State Department of Public Health (DPH) the City Council and City staff will need at least three months to analyze and make
recommendations to the City Council. He does not think that enactment should be coterminous with the DPH guidelines. The Planning Board recommendation is favorable. If it is complex for DPH to promulgate regulations on the topic then all legislative bodies in the Commonwealth need time to deal with the complexities of the issue.

Mr. Roberts outlined the zoning in more detail. After the initiative petition entitled "Law for the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana was approved by voters in Nov 2012 the law took effect on Jan 1, 2013. He stated that the question is what would happen particularly with establishments that were producing, acquiring, and/or distributing medical marijuana and how they would be treated under the zoning ordinances. He stated that the zoning ordinances do not cover such uses as defined in the new state law. After consultation with City Departments and the Health Department it made sense to create a piece of the ordinance that would define and clarify what was defined in the state law as a medical marijuana treatment center, what this would be and how it would fit within the current structure of the ordinance. The language that was suggested has several parts. It defines the use, establishes it as a principal use in the ordinance and not an accessory use. The restriction on such
establishment uses is in all zoning districts for a period of nine months. The purpose of the restriction is to understand how the uses would be regulated on a state-wide level and to develop a set of zoning regulations that fit within the state-wide structure, but also take into account the particular land use considerations that are unique to Cambridge and the City would want to address the placement or allowance of any use within the City. The Planning Board heard this petition on Jan 22, 2013 and made a favorable recommendation. The Planning Board made two points. One point the language can be read in two ways when it states that the section shall be effective for a period of nine months beginning Jan 1, 2013 or until such time that the City Council enacts a superseding zoning regulation. The question arose does this mean that the restriction would automatically expire after nine months if the City Council took no action or that the restriction would be in place for at a minimum
nine months or potentially longer if the City Council does not take any superseding action. This question can be looked at in a number of different ways and the City Council has the ability to clarify this issue. There is a May 1, 2013 deadline for the DPU to promulgate state regulations. There is a possibility that there may be an extension and it would be less certain when the regulations would be available for the City to look at and create corresponding zoning regulations. It may be appropriate to state in a different way the interim time period. The other point that the Planning Board mentioned was the regulation of these uses would not just be simply a matter of zoning. There would be other rules and regulations that would be interrelated, such as public health regulations both at the local and state level, licensing and code regulations. There would be discussion about how all the enforcement mechanisms of all agencies would relate to one another when the medical marijuana
treatment centers being to be registered or permitted.

Councillor Cheung asked if anything has happened around medical marijuana in the state. Mr. Roberts stated that the DPH, prior to Jan 1, 2013, stated that no permits, certificates or registrations would be issued to medical marijuana establishments until the regulations were promulgated. Councillor Cheung asked how long will it take for city departments and the Health Department to digest the state regulations and come back to the City Council with recommendations. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board in its recommendations stated that there would be a larger community discussion with residents and businesses. He stated this will take a minimum of 3 months to a maximum of 6 months and will depend on the complexities of the state regulations. This will also take coordination with city departments and the community. Councillor Cheung commented that the city staff needs time to be thoughtful for the community to implement. He suggested having the implementation date being 3-6
months after the DPH promulgates their regulations.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that for her the initial nine months is enough time to do this kind of zoning and coordination of departments and agencies. Massachusetts is not the first state to enact this legislation. Section 11.700 expiration is the sooner than nine or no longer than nine months. She stated that a third trigger could be or four months after DPH comes out with their regulations. The City would have to have something in place in four months after DPH has their regulations in place. The City has an obligation to do this and not stretch out the period of the moratorium. She stated that the reactions from other communities at the MMA workshop were to make the moratorium permanent or do it sooner. She commented on the possibility of all kinds of illegal behaviors. She stated that she wanted a temporary moratorium in place and to move quickly to put the permanent zoning in place. Mr. Roberts stated that the deadline for the stated to promulgate regulations was 120 days or
four months after the law take effect. The language that was suggested was to create a nine month restriction; this would be for five months. In terms of the interim restriction and expiration, if it does reach a point where it expires the language would no longer be in effect and would revert to existing zoning language. It would have to be assessed in the context of what is in the current zoning. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that this is like a pharmacy or clinic and asked if the zoning ordinance has uses for clinics. Mr. Roberts stated that the definition in the state law states this type of use is medical marijuana treatment center which is a facility that may produce, distribute, creating medical marijuana and it does not say that this is done through a clinic. It does state that the operation must be not for profit operation and this could fall into any number of use categories in the zoning and this is what leads to the uncertainty. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that one good
thing is that we are referring back to DPH and these centers must be privately owned and registered. Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if CDD thinks that growing marijuana for private consumption needs to be spelled out in zoning. Mr. Roberts responded that this would need to be explored when regulations are established.

Mayor Davis stated that other communities are looking at this in the same way as tattoo parlors. A problem is that medical marijuana is a strange term because there is no research about marijuana. There is no regulation on the strength of the product or the type of product available. It is not wise to look at this as how fast can we get this done. She would take the most conservative approach and do it carefully and make sure it is in the best interest of the city. The fact that the product is so unregulated is frightening and that it is banned by the Federal Government. There is no consistency of the product in the law. What is medical marijuana? Is the product itself regulated? Mr. Roberts stated that the law as approved only defines the use of medical marijuana. No distinction between marijuana and medical marijuana; it is only the use of the substance for debilitating diseases that is defined. Mayor Davis asked about whether a prescription is needed. Mr. Roberts stated that
marijuana is not a prescription drug under federal law. A physician makes a diagnosis and then the patient qualifies for medical marijuana. The patient would register with the DPH to obtain marijuana for medical use. Mayor Davis asked if the conditions for use are defined. Mr. Roberts read the list of debilitating medical conditions. Mayor Davis stated that CA and Colorado have regulated marijuana and that the City Council should look into this. Councillor vanBeuzekom added that marijuana is regulated in New Mexico. Mayor Davis urged caution on implementing this and to learn from the experience of other communities that regulate medical marijuana. The costs and benefits need to be reviewed.

Councillor Kelley stated there are zoning restrictions in the use categories like light manufacturing of drugs. To expect the City Council to move quickly is not good; this is going to be complicating. He spoke about abject failure on the war on drugs. The zoning code includes the definition of family. This use could put stress on the neighborhoods. He does not want delays for delay sake, but he does not want to move fast so as not delay.

Councillor Cheung favored thoughtful process on how to regulate. He worried about the guise of a thoughtful process extending into the future to prevent this from ever coming to the community. He feels some responsibility because Cambridge had the 2nd highest number of yes votes to this question. He wants to give the City Administration, the Health Department and CDD time to review the regulations.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that you do not get a prescription for marijuana. She has seen the benefits of medical marijuana as a hospice volunteer on patients. There are clear benefits from the use of medical marijuana.

Public comment opened at 5:26pm.

Corey Mashburn, 94 Antrim Street, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Mass. Prevention Alliance, which advocates for sound public health policies. The Mass. Prevention Alliance is in favor of the moratorium to research more. It is the duty of the City Council to look into issues that affect the health of the City. He expressed the need to be careful on this issue. Do not rush this. Did the voters actually know what they were voting on when they voted on this ballot question? This is a non-profit organization and will not bring revenue to the state. Reading and Wakefield went to the extreme and banned medical marijuana treatment centers in their communities. By Mar 21, 2013 the Attorney General will rule on the ban in Reading and Wakefield. This is a nightmare. Marijuana is a federal illegal drug. He stated that if the City is doing more research Dr. Kevin Sabet, a Cambridge resident is knowledgeable about marijuana. DEA still has the right to shut down marijuana
dispensaries. There are two medical marijuana based drugs that can be used for treatment now. There has never been a ballot question to legalize a drug.

Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street, spoke about an article in the Boston Globe on Feb 6, 2013 detailing the New Mexico, Colorado and CA problems. The ballot question and law were vague. We are going too fast to install a medical marijuana center in Cambridge. There should be a question on the November ballot asking if a medical marijuana treatment center is wanted in Cambridge.

At 5:35pm public comment was closed on motion of Councillor Cheung.

Councillor Maher stated that this is a complex issue and he felt people did vote for the broader issue. It is incumbent on us to see what regulations that the DPH comes out with. He understands that there may be a medical benefit to the use of marijuana. If this petition were referred to the City Council he requested that before ordination that CDD come back with tighter language for the restriction for a period of six months after the state issues their regulations rather than for nine months. If the City Council passes tighter language in 6 months then the moratorium could be eliminated. Language will come in and then it would be substituted.

Councillor Cheung made the following motion:
ORDERED: That before ordination of the proposed zoning amendment to create a new section 11.700 entitled Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses that the Community Development Department prepare language that the restriction be for a period of six months after the State Department of Public Health issues their regulations, rather than nine months.

The motion - Carried.

Councillor Maher made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the proposed zoning amendment to create a new section entitled: 11.700 Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses be forwarded to the full City Council subject to the condition that before ordination the Community Development Department will provide language that the restriction be for a period of six months after the State Department of Public Health issues their regulations.

The motion - Carried.

Councillor Maher thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:40pm on motion of Councillor van Beuzekom.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Tues, Feb 26, 2013 beginning at 4:44pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss the build form, including FAR, Height, Footplates, Open Space and Parking.

Councillor Maher opened the meeting and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being recorded with audio and visual devices. Tonight's meeting will focus on the built form. He outlined the format of the meeting.

Steve Marsh, Managing Director of Real Estate for MIT, stated that this is the second meeting. There has been a second official Planning Board hearing. The Planning Board recommended that the petition be referred with a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Design guidelines have been developed with work from the Planning Board and Community Development Department. The built form will be discussed including FAR, Height, Footplates Open Space, and Parking. He gave an overview of the petition.

The current petition represents 2 1/2 years of work. This work has produced a refined petition that has garnered community support to advance Kendall Square as a premiere center of innovation, to emerge as a vibrant destination for retail, restaurants and entertainment and to create a truly mixed use district where people can work, live and play. A copy of the presentation was distributed. MIT will continue to work with the stakeholders as the petition proceeds. The chart on page five shows the original petition and the refinements made with the current petition. Chart on page 6 shows the general alignment with the Kendall Square process. Mr. Marsh addressed the five areas that were the subject of this meeting.

FAR: the FAR is limited to 3.9 across the district. Uses across the district include residential, academic, commercial, office and laboratory and retail. The current zoning across the four sub districts inside PUD today contain FAR ranging from 2.0 to 4.0. The K2 stressed the need for a mixed use and active ground floor retail. The K2 recommended certain FAR exemptions for ground floor retail, housing and innovation spaces. First floor and one level below will be included in the retail exemption. Retail spaces up to 5,000 square feet are exempt with the exception of a grocery market up to 10,000 square feet. In section 13.83.2 contains the housing exemptions. The Planning Board asked that this be included for housing to incentivize MIT to create more housing in the PUD-5 district in the future. MIT has worked long as a leader in providing innovation space. The City Council has stated that innovation space is a priority and MIT agrees. Zoning language allows an exemption for FAR of
up to 50 % for innovation space. He spoke about the conceptual development plan as part of the zoning. The concept is broad, but allows flexibility. Page 6 shows the 7 parking lots which are potential development lots. On the Broadway site significant housing is proposed. Three sites are earmarked for future academic capacity. The other three parcels are science, commercial, office lab based parcels. The commercial office lab space will serve as the economic driver for the investment and allow for the other pieces of the plan. These parcels are the most important parcel for collaborations for science and research that is second to none world-wide.

SETBACKS: Specific setbacks have been established for the Red Cross building. The petition will contain a setback from the new building at One Broadway. A setback has been established of 20 feet from the Red Cross property at the ground level of the corner of the building for approximately 5-6 stories with a height of 85 feet at this level. Then there will be additional setbacks from the property line for 36 feet from the Red Cross property line. This is a reasonable setback and MIT will be happy to put this in the base zoning. MIT will work with the Red Cross during the design process and with all abutters throughout the district.

HEIGHTS: The City Council requested an overview of heights. Within the PUD district the height limitations are governed by section 13.86.1. The maximum height under the section is 250 feet with the exception of the potential of two residential buildings of no more than 300 feet. One building would be allowed in the district on Third Street and one will be allowed in the 250 feet zone along Main Street. This is also the section where moderate income housing comes in at 250 feet. Housing will be discussed more at the next hearing. There is a step down of height on Main Street from the 250 foot zone to a transition zone of 200 feet to 150 feet along Memorial Drive.

OPEN SPACE. The East Cambridge community has asked MIT to focus on open space, both on required open space as well as the connective open space. The critical connections in East Cambridge are from the Broad Canal down Third Street to the Point Park area along Main Street to the Charles River and weaving through areas of the MIT Campus. The challenge is in connecting these pathways to the neighborhoods in Wellington-Harrington, Central Square and Cambridgeport. The zoning requires an increase of 15% in open space. In section 13.87 MIT is embracing the K2 principal of conceptual open space. The Planning Board and the community want to see a broader plan of the open space throughout the Eastern MIT campus and the PUD-5 district. MIT is proud of the open space network and it is considered a key component of the MIT campus.

PARKING. Parking ratios are described in section 13.88. This will set new standards by lowering the existing commercial spaces in the district. Kendall Square is a red line hub with close proximity to the green line. K2 study spoke to this. Shared parking will be studied. Planning Board can allow pre-existing spaces in their review. Cambridge has made great progress in reducing vehicular trips and MIT is and will continue to be a partner in this endeavor.

BUILD FORM. This is in relation to the massing and setbacks which are setting design standards for the buildings. K2 study focused on how to encourage development near mass transit and to meet the needs of the community by creating retail while encouraging housing. Heights and massing is utilized to create a mixed use of livable, walk able sustainable communities where you can live, work, play, shop and have parks in the district. K2 set overarching planning principles; Community Development has established design guidelines that will articulate the areas of setbacks and floorplates. The zoning is the legal basis of this proposal. The design process for the PUD district in Article 19 will allow the public another chance to weigh in on the urban design as the proposal gets close to specificity in these projects. Page Nineteen shows the MIT and the K2 diagrams. Mr. Marsh stated that MIT brought a model of the development.

Councillor Maher asked Mr. Murphy and CDD staff to discuss design guidelines and to provide an update on the Planning Board.

Mr. Murphy gave a Planning Board update. MIT has had a series of presentation before the Planning Board. The Planning Board encouraged MIT to be aligned with the principals of the K2 report. The Planning Board unanimously supported the petition at their last meeting, but they were unable to forward a recommendation to the City Council in time for this hearing. The Planning Board will be sending a favorable recommendation and will vote on the proposal at the Mar 5th Planning Board meeting. Discussion at the Planning Board was what made sense to put into zoning and into design guidelines. The MIT zoning petition is in alignment with the principles of the K2. Zoning is more stringent where design guidelines are more for interpretation.

At this time Mr. Boothe presented the Draft Design Guidelines for Kendall Square dated Feb 25, 2013. He listed the contents of the guidelines. Design guidelines are referenced in the zoning. The guidelines set a vision, but there is flexibility. The guidelines are structured around a series of goals that try to flesh out the vision and then measure suggestions on how the goals may be achieved. Pages 4 and 5 contain the types of streets and parks that make up the square. Some open space in the square needs help and more open space is being sought as well as to connect the open space. Environmental quality is discussed on page 6. Taller buildings being planned for Kendall Square and the effect of the shadows caused by the buildings will be reviewed. Walk ability is a hallmark of Cambridge. Accessibility is covered on page 8. We need to ensure that the build form is working for everyone. Page 9 covers the built form. One of the key composition goals for Kendall Square is
that it should all come together in a stronger way and to ensure synergy with the existing buildings. Active ground floor will be created. Kendall Square is bustling with innovation. Page 11 covers scale and massing. Historical buildings need to be respected. We need to ensure that there is transition from this dense core to the neighborhoods. Massing is to avoid having monolithic buildings. Major public and secondary streets are covered on Page 14. Page 16 outlines how to use buildings so that there is architectural interest. Strong, diverse architecture is sought. Page 18 talks about tall building could enhance the Kendall Square identity. Pages 20-21 shows pictures of Kendall Square along the street. Page 22 addresses connectors meaning the bridges between buildings. Large floorplates are difficult to make buildings architectural pleasing. Ground floor design guidelines; there is a huge concern on how to make the ground floors vibrant. Third Street is coming along well with the
ground floor spaces including restaurants. Residential ground floor is discussed on page 29. Page 30 discusses Academic buildings, south of Pacific Street, and the desire to have the streets to feel connected to Kendall Square.

Councillor Reeves asked whose guidelines are they - Community Development Department or the C2 Study. Mr. Murphy responded that these are the Planning Board guidelines from the K2 Committee as the K2 went through the analysis. Mr. Boothe added that the roots of the guidelines are from the Goody Clancy and the K2 Committee work. Councillor Reeves stated that he is confused because the City engaged Goody Clancy to do K2C2 study. He stated that the City Council has never received the K2C2 study. The Planning Board recommendations refer to K2 study, but there does not seem to be a final K2C2 Study that can be reviewed. He asked where and when will the final design guidelines come from. Mr. Murphy stated that a series of meeting was held with the City Council, David Dixon and K2 Committee and their work. Mr. Boothe stated that the Nov 20, 2012 recommendations were discussed at a Dec 2012 Roundtable meeting on K2C2. Councillor Reeves stated that there have never been firm recommendations
for K2. How will the City Council be able to interpret them having never read them and having them in draft version. Mr. Murphy stated that the K2 zoning recommendation was heard in Nov 2012; this is the K2 committee's zoning recommendation. The Planning Board has a design document from K2. These are two documents that the Planning Board is looking at. The design guidelines are a Planning Board document. MIT zoning is before the City Council now. Subsequent to this there will be other zoning proposal such as the Volpe site and will follow subsequently by area. Within K2 there are several PUD districts. The other PUD districts are the Volpe site and Cambridge Research Park. Mr. Boothe stated that the Planning Board wanted the K2 and MIT plan to be seamless. Subsequent discussions will be on CRA parcels. The design guidelines are a draft. Councillor Reeves stated that after the K2 process he was unaware that there will be additional guidelines presented on each PUD area. He understood
that the K2C2 was looking at the area as a coherent whole area. Mr. Boothe stated that the guidelines cover the entire area. The Volpe site is still a question mark. MIT is the largest parcel.

Councillor Reeves questioned what is posed for the other side of Alexandria site. He asked about the plans for the subway station. Mr. Boothe stated that whether the MIT press building will be saved still needs to be settled. Ms. Farooq stated that the K2C2 goal was to take a comprehensive look and this is what the K2C2 recommendations are intending to do, but the MIT piece is advancing ahead of the K2. The rest of the package will be brought to the City Council as one package so that the City Council can evaluate the K2C2 zoning package together.

Councillor Reeves stated that the historical buildings need to be discussed by the City Council. He is not convinced that keeping two buildings as a tab low for a third is either wisdom or historic preservation. When University Park was built the City Council was sold a vision of University Park that was first retail around the quadrangle, however the subsequent uses there have not been what was proposed. He asked how we can make sure that it will not happen again in the context of this first floor retail. There are examples of the things that need to be avoided. He used the Koch Building as an example of what to avoid. Mr. Boothe stated that historical demolition has a process, but this piece can go forward with the zoning. Mr. Murphy spoke assurances in the K2 study relating to the requirements for a retail plan, the size of retail and how to make retail work. There is no guarantee that retail will work. Mr. Boothe stated that lessons have been learned about the failure of retail
at University Park, but this is a different time and place.

Councillor Cheung stated that he was pleased that MIT has been responsive on entrepreneurial space, retail, increase in housing and the Red Cross setback. He has more questions about the Kendall Square design guidelines. He stated that the 5% entrepreneur space seemed reasonable, but he would like to make a decision on rational criteria and to make sure that there is the right mix of entrepreneurial space. He questioned whether the 5% could be higher. The issue of sharing machine shop space was brought up at a meeting of the Neighborhood and Long Term Committee. He asked if this would be included in 5% space. He asked if the quasi incubator space at the Sloan site would be included in this 5%. He question why there is a limit to 300 feet for the residential building and how did this come about. He stated that E38 historical building looks like a mistake and not a historical building. More could be done with this space. What is the plan to activate across the street and how does this
fit into MIT's proposal and the Kendall Square design guidelines. He asked MIT to look at two-sided retail again. He asked if the design guidelines and the ground floor retail apply to the academic buildings like the Koch building. The goal in the beginning was to have cohesive design guidelines for Kendall Square. Mr. Murphy stated that the 5% entrepreneurial space came out of committee discussions. This is unprecedented zoning. There is no benchmark to ensure what will work. It was working with the number of people who are involved in working with innovation space. Innovation space is changing all the time. Flexibility has been built in. This will grow and change over time. No definite answer how the 5% was derived. It was an effort to try to balance competing demands. The ultimate height which comes out of zoning will be the City Council prerogative. Height came from the K2 committee after looking at the Kendall Square area contextually. Mr. Boothe added that the height is 250 feet
in a limited area. Councillor Reeves asked how high the Watermark building is. Mr. Boothe stated that there are varying heights. The lower height is 220 feet and the higher height is 230 feet. Eastgate is the tallest at 300 feet and was used as benchmark. Ms. Farooq stated that there is a two level approach on the innovation space. The 5% innovation space is intended to be a requirement, but there is an FAR incentive. A 50% FAR is a benefit for start up space. The 5% number came from a subgroup that was convened by Tim Rowe. The question is how much start up space there is now and what is the demand they are seeing from people who want to relocate to this area. Shared machine shops - there is a criteria that defines what start up space is. Mr. Murphy stated that GFA is used only for ground floor retail space. More animation is urged for the Koch space, but this is not part of this petition. Councillor Cheung stated that he would prefer more housing and more inclusionary by relaxing the
300 foot height and 10% entrepreneurial space.

Councillor vanBeuzekom commented that there is no doubt that Kendall Square is different from any other part of Cambridge. It is the golden goose and she does not want to kill the golden goose. Small entrepreneurs are concerned about getting small space and it being affordable. She also would like the innovation space to be 10%. She stated that small less expensive space must be kept. Large companies are pushing out small companies. Innovation is happening on the upper levels as well. Ground floor will have retail, but this does not make Kendall Square what it is. The Koch building is not a complete failure; the store front is saying this is science. She wanted retail appropriate for the workers who are working in Kendall Square. A retail store is needed that tells the biotech story in Kendall Square; more like a museum rather than a store. She asked if innovation space will be structured like inclusionary zoning. Ms. Farooq stated that 5% is the requirement, but the 50% does not
apply to your FAR. Mr. Murphy stated that it is capped at 5% of non residential GFA. Councillor vanBeuzekom asked that this be rethought and changed. Ms. Farooq commented that this is a balancing act. The City Council has the final decision. Councillor vanBeuzkom stated that she wanted more than 15% open space. She has no problem with the 300 feet height. Eastgate, Marriott and Broad expansion is what is seen when you look from Boston to Kendall Square. This is an area where height is appropriate and she wants more open space in this area. She stated that she wants a minimum of contiguous open space. Mr. Boothe stated that Master plans will be submitted with the PUDs. This will be part of the design guidelines. There is an open space committee that will look into this process.

Councillor vanBeuzekom spoke about transportation - people will want to come to Kendall Square to live and work. MIT has to be aggressive with increasing the use of public transportation and expand how people can travel. This includes bus shelters, better advertising of the EZ Ride and having the M2 Shuttle come to Kendall Square. Driving to Kendall Square on Memorial Drive is awkward. MIT should work with DCR to direct traffic into Kendall Square more easily. Mr. Murphy stated that transportation issues will come up with the community benefits funds used for transportation. The K2 committee supported using a signification amount of the community benefits funds for transportation. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that the oneness is on the property owner who is bringing more people into city. She feels community benefits dollars should not be used for maintain roadway. She is glad that MIT is developing more privately owned public open space.

Councillor Cheung stated that there needs to be balance between the ratio to housing and to office development. Rents will go up if housing is not built with office space. He would like to see this ratio within the K2 study and what this ratio is.

Councillor Reeves asked if there is going to be a final K2 report authored by Goody Clancy. Councillor Murphy stated that there will be a final K2C2 report; it will be a compilation of work done. Goody Clancy's work supported the work of the committee. It is a consensus report. Mr. Boothe explained it will be similar to ECAP report done in 2001. Councillor Reeves stated that he does not feel that the Goody Clancy vision has been met. MIT has not defined its face. Are we going to come up with a policy that will be a consensus? He stated that he is less clear and more concerned with the principles we will be working with.

Councillor Maher asked what the floorplate of the new Broad building is. Mr. Boothe responded that it is 28,000 per floor going up. Councillor Maher asked what the Watermark floorplate is. Mr. Boothe stated it is 12,000 square feet. Councillor Maher stated that the City Council has gotten negative feedback about the Broad expansion; this is a complex proposal. It is a large building. The model shows 4 sites where there are buildings being built that will be slender. This is the place where height should be looked at. Some projects have worked well and some could have been done differently. We want to get this right. The job of the City Council is to do the broader guidelines and policy; Community Development Department looks at the finite details. And these must be reconciled.

Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that the Planning Board looks at color of building, glass and brick, but the City Council looks at the massing. The City Council has to look at what the City gets for the zoning change. She stated that the 7 empty parking lots are owned by MIT with no taxes paid. There is a value to the parking lots and the City has viewed the lots as academic space. Councillor Reeves stated that MIT has been land banking for a long time. These parking lots are land banks.

Councillor Reeves spoke about new, old ugly and not pedestrian friendly buildings he has seen elsewhere and this is not what is wanted here. Is form based zoning part of the guidelines and if so when does the City Council get the primer on what form based zoning is. Mr. Boothe stated that the guidelines are trying to build buildings in hospitable ways. The zoning ordinance has height setback etc. and this is not what is meant by form based zoning. The guidelines try to go a step further with imagery.

Councillor Maher asked if it is possible to get the Planning Board recommendation by Mar 7th. Mr. Murphy stated that the Planning Board will do the best it can. Councillor Maher stated that at the Mar 7th meeting innovation space, sustainability, the community benefits fund, uses and retail will be discussed and it would be helpful to have the recommendation of the Planning Board. Councillor Maher stated that there seems to be dissension within the MIT campus family about the proposal. He asked if MIT could address this at the next meeting and have it discussed publicly. A problem in Kendall Square is the issue of on-street parking. When the MXD district was originally laid out there was no on-street parking. On Amherst Street and behind 100 Memorial Drive spaces are reserved because they are on MIT owned streets; will these spaces be returned to public parking spaces? The success in finding a good restaurant or retail establishment is the ability for consumers to run in, quickly
get something and run back out to their car. This will not be done with garage parking. The City wants more increased on-street parking. The plan shows that going down Binney Street to Third Street calls for more parking. Presently it is difficult to find parking space on Third Street.

At 6:35pm Councillor Maher opened the meeting to public comment.

Fred Fantini, School Committee member, spoke about the lack of CRLS students getting into MIT. The MIT relationship with CRLS is non-existent. At least 5 students should be admitted to MIT. MIT should create a pathway to help CRLS student get into MIT.

Chris Barr, Senior Manager at Amgen, 48 Russell Street, stated that Amgen supported the MIT development. MIT has been a place for innovation for decades. The Amgen facility in Cambridge is valuable because of its location in Kendall Square. Kendall Square is a hub of innovation. He urged the City Council to approve the zoning proposal before the City Council.

Brian Spatocco, 70 Pacific Street, spoke for the graduate body of MIT. He stated that there has been engagement with the university to investigate graduate housing. He stated that on Feb 6th the graduate student council held a joint forum on Kendall Square. There were 215 people who attended the forum. He listed the goals of the forum. There is genuine concern for housing. He also stated his concern with the fact that public transportation stops running at 7pm.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, agreed with Councillor Reeves that there is a need to know what the City Council is asked to do. The Planning Board has worked hard to develop design guidelines, but the Planning Board will not be here in 10 years. The City Council needs to set maximum and minimum requirements of the zoning details. Another Koch building is not wanted. There are no minimum setbacks only on Memorial Drive and Main Street and are only on new buildings above 8 stories. She submitted a communication. She spoke about the noise standards. Commercial sound requirements are less restrictive. The roof top noise standards are out of date. The City Council needs to focus on the details.

Robin Lapidus, Executive Director, Central Square Business Association stated that the association supported the process and that the recommendations keep improving. Kendall Square will be vibrant and this vibrancy will come to Central Square.

Charlie Teague, 23 Edmonds Street, stated that people leave because the meetings are too long and presenters are repeating the same material. This proposal, the most important benefits would be to give MIT what they want, but with this MIT brings its students who can walk anywhere on campus. This reduces transportation and housing costs.

Mark Jaquith, 213 Hurley Street, asked why the 300 feet height limit. The area south of Main Street is the best place to put height. North of Broadway and at the Broad Canal is not the place to put height because of shadow. An independent shadow study is being commissioned. Chapter 91 restrictions apply to this area. He stated that 20% moderate and affordable housing with the housing proposed is a great thing. There is a big concern with the noise. The Noise Ordinance is outdated and inadequate.

Barbara Broussard, 148 Third Street, stated that the City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Board for the construction at the Broad Institute and the Koch building. She read a prepared statement. She spoke about connected open space and vibrant streets around Kendall Square. Graduate housing was included for Kendall Square and Central Square. Many ideas have been included in the present Kendall Square plan.

Charlie Marquardt, 10 Rogers Street, stated that the housing issue must be looked at. Regarding height he wanted the tallest building to be in Cambridge. He spoke about building interest in Kendall Square and open space. Built form - make it look pretty and talk about the zoning envelope. Zoning is the hard part; design is the next step.

Terry Smith, resident of 21 Manassas Avenue and Director of Governmental Affairs at the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, 859 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce supported the proposal. He spoke on the PUD-5 relating to the built form. The zoning sets guidelines to make sure that the public spaces are active and that development in this critical area enlivens the entire area. He also supported the MIT proposal. He spoke about the built form. The petition has been changed since the one filed in 2011. He urged the City Council to pass the proposal.

Lauretta Siggers, Regional Chief Operating Officer, American Red Cross, 139 Main Street, gave the Ordinance Committee an update on the Red Cross property. She stated that the Red Cross has met with Community Development and the concerns of the Red Cross have been heard and the concerns have been built into the design guidelines. The Red Cross has also met with MIT and had a good conversation. MIT has made adjustments and have increased the setbacks. There will be close collaboration between CDD, MIT and the Red Cross as the plans progress.

Jordan Fliegel, 21 Granville Road, stated that he has a start up company that he started last year at One Broadway. He has not been able to find affordable space in Kendall Square for his start up. He moved to Boston. He favored the MIT proposal. Affordable housing and affordable start up space is needed.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated his agreement with School Committee member Fantini regarding CRLS students not being admitted to MIT. A transit oriented development goal is to reduce parking. All should rely on public transit. Innovation needs to be balanced and well rounded. He stated that linking Central Square to Kendall Square needs more attention.

At 7:14pm on motion of Councillor Reeves public comment was closed.

Councillor Reeves stated that the City Manager should be requested to provide a tech assistance session. The K2 Committee was to resolve issues on Main Street and Broadway. He expressed his concerns about how all the components fit together. He commented that the model should be looked at when it does not have to fight with public comment. He stated that he does not know how the City Council can make a decision based on the knowledge that it does not have. Councillor Maher stated that he would work on this. He agreed that this is a cumbersome process and the City Council needs to look more closely at this and to do this the City Council needs to spend more time on the proposal. This means that the public has to wait to speak while the City Council looks at the proposal.

Councillor Cheung stated that at the next meeting he would like more detail about the housing study and plan and the process led by Professor Clay. There needs to be a plan for the housing.

He would also like to hear from MIT on their perspective about the 10% entrepreneurial space. What would it look like if you did not have the E38 building?

In response to a question by Mayor Davis, Councillor Maher stated that the petition expires on Apr 24, 2013.

Councillor Reeves stated that part of the Goody Clancy understanding is that if the City Council wanted a list of the laundry items that came from the Charrette meeting, Kendall Square could have 4,000 units of housing. He asked where would this come from. It has been promised by Boston Properties. To what extent does this proposal satisfy this desire? He asked if the City is going to instruct MIT to build graduate housing. If innovation is to occur it will occur where the ingredients are for innovation. He would like this information included in the request for tech assistance.

Councillor Maher thanked all those present for their attendance. He stated that the next meeting will be held on Mar 7th and will include the issue of historical buildings.

The meeting adjourned at 7:22pm on motion of Councillor Cheung.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair

Committee Report #5
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on Thurs, Feb 28, 2013 beginning at 3:15pm in the Community Room at 2 Mt. Auburn Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The purpose of the meeting was to receive an update on the status of the potential sale of 2 Mt. Auburn Street.

Councillor Decker opened the meeting and stated the purpose. She stated that it was important to have this meeting in the building so that the residents could get accurate information and receive an update. She informed the residents that she will hold an additional meeting on this matter. She will make arrangements that will enable residents to meet with her individually and ask questions. She explained the process of the meeting. A report of this Housing Committee meeting will be forwarded to the full City Council.

Councillor Decker stated that Harvard University and HRI are still in negotiations. Mr. Daly cannot legally discuss the negotiations. HRI is the state designee to buy the property and has the first right of first offer and first refusal to purchase 2 Mt. Auburn Street. This process is lengthy and negotiations continue. Councillor Decker stated that she has been appointed by the House Speaker to serve on the Massachusetts' Legislature's Joint Housing Committee. The 2 Mt. Auburn Tenants Association (40T) rejected legal assistance and representation from Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS). She suggested that the tenant association reconsider this decision. GBLS was helpful in the successful preservation of the Chapman Arms Apartments. The goal is to secure this building for long-term housing of low-income seniors, and the City of Cambridge will defend this. She has been working closely with the city's Community Development Department as well as being in close consultation with the
Association of Cambridge Tenants (ACT), legal services, CEOC and tenants to communicate to Harvard the determination of the City that if the property is sold it is remains subject to the zoning decisions which require it to continue to house low-income seniors. While it is the City's legal opinion that the original agreement is defensible and would be held up in court, it is also our expectation that affordability would be reaffirmed in new restrictions put in place upon the sale of the property. Mr. John VanSaun, President of the 2 Mt. Auburn Tenants Association, stated that there have been attorneys willing to represent the association, but there have been conflicts of interest. He stated that the State Department of Housing and Community Development have no substantive involvement in this contract. There have been nine tenant meetings held. Harvard University has refused to have substantive negotiations with the tenants association. Mike Johnston, CHA, informed the residents that
Section 8 housing vouchers are not tied to Harvard University owning the building.

Councillor Decker stated that the negotiations are happening between Harvard University, the owner of the building, and HRI, the state designee under MGL Chapter 40T. She wanted the tenants involved in the sale. When the sale is made the terms can be discussed. She again encouraged the tenants to use GBLS as an entity to represent the tenants.

The meeting was opened to public comment.

Bill Leonard asked if the CHA and the City of Cambridge would buy the property. Councillor Decker explained that the City of Cambridge does not buy property. The Affordable Housing Trust was created so that the City could fund housing efforts while leveraging other funds through grants and tax credits. HRI is not a City entity. The state has designated HRI to act on its behalf under MGL 40T. HRI has a long history of working successfully on affordable housing with the City.

Bruce Lamotte commented that negativity is not the best way to solve the problem. He stated that the more meetings that are held there is less interest.

Cindy Thompson stated that she would like more of a commitment to keep the building as it is.

Councillor Decker stated that Harvard University has informed the City that it plans to sell the building. She feels that Harvard University should not be selling a building to make a profit. Harvard was granted to build the building outside of the rules with the provision that the building house low income seniors. People are afraid they will lose their homes.

Bob Chamberlin stated that there are no individual vouchers; it is a development voucher. He spoke about the maintenance cost, the cost to get rid of the bed bugs and the cost to fix the boiler. He expressed his concern about security in the building. He stated that who would want to buy this building and what is the cost for the maintenance is the issue. Councillor Decker responded that HRI has conducted an initial assessment of building needs, but cannot disclose this information at this time.

John VanSaun, President of the 2 Mt. Auburn Tenants Association, stated that invitations were extended to all to come to speak to the tenants. Councillor Reeves has given attention to this building and the tenants. He stated that the tenants need to understand the law. HRI's exclusive rights to the building expired in Jan 9, 2013. The repair costs for the building are estimated at $7 - 8 million. This has been discussed with the CHA. Harvard has refused to discuss the details. Councillor Decker stated that HRI is the state designee - this is the law.

Peter Daly, HRI, stated that as the state designee, HRI has the first right of refusal to purchase the building. This level out the playing field for affordable housing. If Harvard University rejects HRI's offer HRI can examine any offer and purchase and sale agreement made by another entity and choose to purchase the building under those terms.

Eurene Lashley asked Mr. Daly if HRI is aware of the scope of the repairs that the building needs. She listed needed repairs as the elevators are always out of service, the windows need attention and the heating system needs repair. Mr. Daly stated that he is aware of some necessary repairs. A complete analysis will be done when HRI's offer is accepted. HRI knows what to expect. Mr. Cotter stated that as HRI moves forward a financing plan will be done. Funders want to know that HRI is aware of the condition of the building.

Barbara Biddle stated that under Harvard University's ownership the building is deplorable. If the building was torn down and rebuilt the location is prime. Councillor Decker responded that 2 Mt. Auburn Street is unlikely to be torn down, and further, whoever buys the building must house low income seniors outlined in the variance. The City will enforce this provision.

Tom Lucey, Director of Government & Community Relations, Harvard University, stated that discussions regarding the sale of the building are subject to confidentiality agreements. However, Harvard has already stated that it will condition any sale on a commitment by the new owner to preserve the affordability of all units for a minimum of thirty (30) years. Harvard, The City, and HRI have a long history of working successfully together on the issue of affordable housing. The most recent example was with the Chapman Arms building in Harvard Square where the three entities came together to preserve the affordable units in that building. Harvard has also conditioned any sale on the renewal of the Section 8 contract; this will ensure the manner in which rents are calculated for tenants will not change; the Section 8 contract will be extended for 30 years as well.

Ellen Shachter, Attorney, GBLS, informed the residents that the variance states that housing must be for low income seniors. She stated that going forward the tenants' can make sure that the definition and the legal documents are clearer. The variance is a legal binding document and should be made clearer. Mr.VanSaun stated that fewer documents are available now. Councillor Decker responded that the legal service and the City Solicitor feel that the variance is legally binding. She and the City will be sure that future documents include language to ensure the individuals with disabilities are legally included. CHA will also include this language based on its current practices. Mr. Cotter stated that these details will be included no matter who the buyer is. Mr. Johnson stated that 13.5% of the population in the building will be younger disabled tenants. Harvard University has requested the future buyer to have the building affordable for a minimum of thirty (30) years.

Barbara Biddle asked where disabled elderly tenants fit in.

Beryl Hoffstein, Vice President of the 2 Mt. Auburn Tenants Association, asked about the thirty year period and what is the legality of the Section 8 vouchers. Mr. Cotter explained that the affordability will be continued for fifteen years with three - five year renewals option and requirement. There will be other affordability restrictions which will also keep the building affordable. When the cuts come the CHA will work with the City and the funding sources to minimize the impact for the tenants. Mr. Lucey stated that since all the entities involved with this process understand the conditions regarding affordability and the renewal of the Section 8; all parties share the goal of extending the affordability for thirty years. The sale documents will contain language that reflects this commitment.

Julia Jay asked if there is a possibility that Harvard will back out of selling the building and repair it. Mr. Lucey stated that it is unlikely.

Robert LaTremouille, 872 Mass. Avenue, spoke of his involvement with zoning issues and Harvard since the 1980's.

Mike Roberts stated that the issue is not just the sale of the building. He stated that 2000 affordable units are facing elimination. He wanted a back-up plan that included advance warning, the CHA responsibility for disabled and senior tenants and tenants of 2 Mt. Auburn who have to move to another building are given priority. He spoke about the limited budgets that people are living on.

Councillor Decker stated that no one feels safe with what is happening with government funding. There are a lot of eyes watching the sale of this building. She asked Mike Johnston to explain the impact of the loss of funding.

Mr. Johnston stated the residents at 2 Mt. Auburn are in better shape financially than those in public housing. Due to sequestration, the voucher program is getting 96 percent of every dollar, while the public housing program is getting funded at a proration of 73 percent to the dollar. There is a $1.2 million deficit in public housing. The CHA board is committed to making the numbers work; the numbers are scary. If HRI buys the building the tenants are in a good situation; HRI is successful in operating and maintaining its property.

Joyce Margaris asked how long it takes to sign the contract.

Bharat Bhatt commented on the resolution sponsored by Councillor Decker (and passed unanimously), claiming it did not support tenants. Councillor Decker stated that the resolution written by her and passed by all 9 councillors directed Harvard to first sell the building to HRI and, second, donate all profits from the sale to the city's Affordable Housing Trust, among other things. She restated that she has great concerns that Harvard would make a profit off the sale of a building it agreed to construct and own in exchange for building rights (variances) and a commitment to the community. The original deal did not invite Harvard to revisit the deal years later and profit from its sale.

Councillor Decker stated that she is working hard to ensure that the seniors living at 2 Mt. Auburn today will be secure and that more generations will live here.

Mr. VanSaun stated that Harvard has refused to respond to the tenant association's request for information. He stated that affordability is not funding. The position of the 2 Mt. Auburn Tenants Association is to get the details in writing before the sale.

Bob Chamberlin stated that other housing units have state funding. He suggested the state make up the difference of the HUD subsidies.

Hasson Rashid suggested that the building become self-sufficient and that the tenant should buy the building themselves.

Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if there is a time limit for Harvard to respond under 40T. Mr. Cotter stated there is no time limit to respond. HRI has submitted an offer under 40T. Mr. VanSaun stated that the right of first refusal expired on Jan 9, 2013. The bid was submitted late. Harvard is now free to consider other bids simultaneously with HRI. Harvard is under no obligation to give special consideration to HRI. HRI can match any other bid.

Elaine DeRosa, CEOC, stated that this meeting was intended to be informational, not to create anxiety. People came to this meeting in good faith and are well intentioned. The specifics do not have to be known. The tenants need to help with the specifics of the future documents. This process will in the end support the tenants. We all need to work together.

Councillor Decker thanked all those present for their attendance and participation.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:48pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair

Committee Report #6
The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Thurs, Mar 7, 2013 beginning at 4:44pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue discussions on the petition by MIT to create a new Section 13.80 Planned Unit Development 5 (PUD-5) District; specifically to discuss uses, Incentive Zoning, Community Fund, Housing and Sustainability. A presentation will be made by the Executive Director of the Historical Commission on the historic buildings.

Councillor Maher convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He announced that the meeting is being recorded and televised. This is a continuation of the discussion on the MIT petition. The last meeting was on the building form, height, FAR and open space. He asked Assistant City Manager for Community Development to give an update on the recommendation of the Planning Board. The recommendations of the Planning is not officially before the City Council, but will be forwarded to the City Council at the City Council meeting held on Mar 18, 2013.

Mr. Murphy spoke on the Planning Board's favorable recommendation. The Planning Board in its recommendation provided background on the MIT proposal and the K2C2 Planning Study. All parties involved shared the same broad principles and vision for the area. The K2 recommendations provided a set of overarching goals and divided Kendall Square into different sectors with specific zoning strategies for each sector. The Planning Board noted that MIT is prepared to move forward with its zoning proposal for its section, but that other property owners have not formulated their plans yet. It is efficient to focus on the MIT sector first. The Planning Board, MIT and Kendall Square design guidelines have refined the proposal. The MIT petition, as it has evolved, is in accordance with the K2 recommendations. The MIT proposal has received support from the East Cambridge Planning Team. The Planning Board urged favorable adoption of the petition by the City Council.

Councillor Maher invited MIT to give their presentation.

Steve Marsh stated that much effort was made to make the MIT petition integrated with the K2 recommendations. The Planning Board wanted this to be a joint petition and integrate the design guidelines being developed by Community Development. This is the third hearing on the petition. Tonight's meeting will focus on housing, active spaces innovation space, retail, sustainability and the community fund. He spoke about the time line and the evolution of the petition. He gave an overview of the petition. The petition includes doubling of the housing commitment, innovation space in Kendall Square, provides for LEED gold standards, includes sustainability and a community fund of $10.00 per square foot for commercial development, provides and enhances active retail spaces and provides incentive zoning payments of $4.3 million payable to the Affordable Housing Trust to support housing. This proposal is about development of 7 used parking lots. One Broadway is the proposed housing site; 3
sites are reserved for future academic and 3designated for science, commercial, office and lab space. This is the right balance for mixed use embedded in K2. He spoke on the housing component.

HOUSING: significant housing was added to the current proposal. The City Council requested that there be a trigger that a specified amount of housing is built before the completion of commercial development. The petition required that 240,000 square feet of housing must be commenced before more than 600,000 square feet of commercial development is permitted. This exceeds the K2 study. At Innovation Landing at One Broadway MIT may build 290,000 square feet of housing on this site. Housing is allowed as of right across the PUD 5. Housing is further incentivized by exempting housing from FAR calculations. This has been added to search for future housing opportunities elsewhere on MIT properties on the request of the Planning Board. Housing on east campus was displayed where 1300 residents reside. Exciting and proposed housing will build a livable community. There have been built 2500 units of housing in Kendall Square and East Cambridge over the last ten years. Today in Cambridge there
are 3500 housing units in the pipeline. Housing helps drive retail and build community and street life. The block at Broadway and Third Street is a transition into the East Cambridge community. One Broadway defines MIT's proposal. It combines housing into an innovation community with retail possibilities and critical open space connections to the Broad Canal and Charles River. The proposal includes affordable, moderate and various unit size housing. At Innovation Landing there can be up to 4800 square feet of affordable housing equaling 50-60 units of affordable moderate housing. Micro-units will also be included. MIT will contribute $4.4 million to the affordable housing trust. MIT was asked to look at graduate housing.

Mr. Ruiz spoke about the graduate student housing study currently being examined by MIT. He submitted a communication about the concerns raised by the MIT community. There are 39% of graduate students housed by MIT. In a 2011 survey 80% students were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with housing. MIT acknowledges that it is critical to retain graduate students. MIT is committed to addressing the needs of this important group of students. A faculty task force was established and completed its recommendation. A recommendation was made for MIT to study the housing needs. The current housing needs will be reviewed by MIT. It is a complex matter that includes review of federal funding with sequestration now in effect. Professor Clay will serve as chair on the graduate student housing working group. The group will contain faculty from the 5 MIT schools and three graduate students. The group will evaluate the student graduate housing needs, identify the strengths and
weaknesses and recommend ways to better serve the graduates student housing needs.

ACTIVE USES: Mr. Marsh stated that the open space requirement was increased in this petition. Active street space is critical to the new development. There will be 75% of the new gross floor area space dedicated to active uses along primary pathways. Active uses include retail, institutional uses open to the public, open air retail and other uses set by the Planning Board. Active spaces draw people in; space programmers have been utilized to help plan these spaces. Retail can be wrapped around Third Street side of One Broadway, Canal Way and Main Street. Time has been spent looking at the east campus gateway on Main Street. The gateway will be studied more. He spoke of the concepts with and without the MIT Press building. There are many ways to treat the historical buildings. The base zoning does not require a decision at this time.

RETAIL: Mr. Marsh stated that the MIT's proposal includes 65,000 square feet of new retail. The community has asked for open air artisan markets, restaurants, pharmacy and a grocery store as well as retail that provide fresh produce, prescriptions and practical and trendy products.

Jesse Baer Kahn, City Retail, spoke about the proposed 65,000 square feet of retail and over 100,000 square feet of retail in the total within the development area. The additional 35,000 square feet is seen by repurposing or re-tenanting retail. This relates to 20 or more new store fronts in key areas. There has been 90,000 square feet of retail, representing 23 new shops, opened in Kendall Square in the last three years. This excludes all retail prior to 2009, excludes space that is for lease or under lease and not yet occupied and includes other areas such as One Kendall. This 100,000 square feet is needed in this area in the two targeted areas of south of Main Street and from Third Street down to Broad Canal. Critical infill is to fill the build form with the proper retail spaces. Kendall Square lacks affordable food items and amenity items. More activity is needed on the weekends. There is nowhere in Kendall Square to purchase milk or personal care items or local produce and
this will be eliminated with this petition? The need for better, more diverse and plentiful retail is documented. It is getting easier to lease space as density is added. As office and housing is added there is more interest from retail operators. The demand has brought in more diverse retail. The catalyst for this starts with restaurants and cafes. The right type of retail is needed to fill the space. The general plan is to create diversity of offerings and affordability of products is by creating a more densely populated mixed use district in Kendall Square. This petition creates this. This is an important project for the region, the square and the city.

INNOVATION SPACE: Mr. Marsh discussed innovation space. The zoning requires dedicated innovation space of 5% of all new commercial gross floor constructed in the district. The defined 5% innovation characteristics in the petition includes short term leases, average suites, small spaces, limits on space for single entities, shared space and defined users. One Broadway has technology, venture capital, the Innovation Center and Innovation Landing with retail. Innovation space can take place throughout the district. MIT would like to see that innovation space is not confined to only this one area.

SUSTAINABILITY: Mr. Marsh stated that all new commercial/residential building developments are required to meet LEED gold criteria, to provide a statement of energy design intent and to incorporate best practices. The City has requested that academic buildings meet higher energy standards. The zoning requires that MIT take an integrated design approach practices across the district by using bike, transportation management, energy efficient design and water management. MIT is committed to evaluating the feasibility of district steam in new developments, incorporating cool roofs and in tracking and reporting on energy use of new buildings in the PUD.

COMMUNITY FUND: Mr. Marsh stated that MIT is contributing to the Affordable Housing Trust but the community fund is dedicated to public benefits. MIT included $10.00 per square foot for new GFA in their zoning proposal. The East Cambridge community took particular interest in funding community open space over the whole area, not just on MIT property. City Council has requested open space. It is MIT's intention that the petition includes open space credits with governance that includes the city and local representation. The petition also includes credits so that the investment can be made directly by MIT. The petition also designates funds to workforce development and transportation improvements to Kendall Square and the adjacent areas.

Councillor Maher asked what the pleasure of the City Council is.

Councillor Maher asked Mr. Sullivan to give his presentation on the historical buildings.

Mr. Sullivan gave background on the historical significance of the buildings, Kendall Square Building located at 238 Main Street, J. L. Hammett Building (also known as Rebecca's) located at 264 Main Street and MIT Press Building located at 292 Main Street. The Historical Commission was involved in this for two years when MIT submitted its first proposal. He explained the importance of Kendall Square was that Kendall Square was the place where in the past people worked in manufacturing and heavy industrial jobs. This disappeared in 1965 with the creation of the urban renewal area. Urban Renewal was needed in Kendall Square. The MIT Press building, Rebecca's and the Kendall Square buildings are an ensemble of buildings that the Historical Commission is interested in because they are the only grouping of historical buildings left in Kendall Square. The Kendall Square building was designed as a landmark with its clock tower and was built in 1917. The Hammett building was built in 1915
next to the Kendall Square building. Hammett was a well known manufacturer of school supplies. The company operated in Kendall Square until the l970's. It is a classic milk construction building. It has been adapted for use as a restaurant and has the potential for many other uses. The MIT Press building was originally built by the Suffolk Engraving Company in l920. This was the site of new information technology at the time that fed magazine, newspapers and books. The Historical Commission felt that these buildings were not only individually significant but also formed an ensemble of urban design. Cambridge is a leader in adapted reuse of buildings. Things can happen without destroying the character of the building. He spoke of examples were this has happened. The Historical Commission is studying the buildings and they are protected as if they were landmarked. The Historical Commission is in sync with the zoning proposal. There are valid concerns for historic preservation; the zoning
is neutral regarding disposition of these buildings. The Historic Commission commends the zoning proposal to the City Council.

Councillor vanBeuzekom asked how this proposal will be submitted. Mr. Sullivan stated that it will be submitted as an ensemble, but wants to see how the zoning process plays out and in crafting out a designation proposal the commission wants to anticipate the use of future developments. The scope of the designation is not determined at this time. Vice Mayor Simmons stated that she has valid concerns with the buildings and is waiting to see the outcome of the zoning. She asked what the Historical Commission's position on this is; is the position of the Historical Commission that the buildings not be changed. Mr. Sullivan stated that the strategy is to continue to participate in the design strategies for Kendall Square and as the proposal takes place. The Historical Commission wants to see how the greater Kendall Square plays out and the use of the buildings and whether they need to be protective. Vice Mayor Simmons stated that the Historical Commission wants the façade to stay true
to the historical character. Mr. Sullivan responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Reeves spoke about Kendall Square being a nationally recognized innovation center and the front door to MIT. He asked Mr. Ruiz about the proposed two tall buildings at the gateway, how one finds MIT and how will this fit into the MIT campus. Mr. Ruiz stated that worked has been done internally with the task force, the School of Architecture and Planning in developing the gateway. A group will be chaired by the dean of the school of architecture, with the task force and the faculty to focus on the objective around the historical buildings, place making, the gateway and the entrance to MIT. Councillor Reeves commented that if the two buildings have signs on them the MIT identity could be lost. Mr. Ruiz stated that MIT is engaged in a creative process to best identify the gateway to the MIT campus with a vibrant retail space on the ground floor and the innovation and lab space linked to the MIT campus. An area will be created to get the sense you are in the MIT campus. The
street level will identify the MIT campus. He stated that a technology display will indicate that one is in the MIT campus. Councillor Reeves stated that there is more than one view of the historic importance of the historic buildings. The first building was stripped of much of its historic significance long ago. He is not sure that the three buildings need to be kept. In Central Square the historic facades have all been peeled away and he believes this is the same for Kendall Square. He is unsure that the historical nexus is there. The Historical Commission is delaying decision until June to determine historical designation. Vice Mayor Simmons stated that she wanted to make sure that voting on one part of this petition did not tie the hands on the historical significance of the buildings. Vice Mayor Simmons stated her concern about the diversity of the retail for the area. She wanted economic diversity to be part of the retail.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the incubation space. At last meeting he asked about increasing the innovation space to 10% and what it would look like. He did not have an answer to the increase in the innovation space. He wanted MIT to set a better precedent. Mr. Marsh stated that considerable time was spent on the innovation space. The 5% is put into the petition, but this is not the only mechanism for innovation space in the area. Innovation lab space is being looked into; it is an experiment. He spoke about emerging companies and the space needed for businesses that are expanding. He did not want to stifle innovation by being too prescriptive. The 5% could change as this evolves. Councillor Cheung stated that the innovation space is going to Boston because Cambridge does not have enough innovation space. Councillor Cheung stated that he is pleased with the on-going housing study, but was hoping to see more in the planning process. He has been told by provost that MIT is not
interested in building graduate student housing. He asked want is the timeline for the task force on housing? Mr. Ruiz stated that MIT needs to understand the housing needs of the students. MIT wants to know what it needs to do for the student housing and to understand the demand for on campus living. It may be the repurposing of housing, or that there is an imbalance with single and married students or to build housing elsewhere. Is it housing or an affordability issue need to be determined? It is in the best interest for MIT to have the best graduate students come to MIT. By July this study is proposed to be complete. Faculty assistance is provided for housing. Councillor Cheung requested, through the Ordinance Committee Chair, that a member of the MIT housing task force come to the City Council to be heard. Marty Schmidt, Associate Provost, stated that with the zoning petition capacity is being preserved for housing and there is capacity on other parts of the campus. The 2010
academic needs study does not include housing. This is being taken seriously by MIT and is addressing the housing needs. If more campus housing is needed MIT has the capacity and intent to do this. Councillor Cheung stated that he does not want that instead of building housing that the subsidy for student housing be increased. Councillor Cheung stated that with the head house moving has anyone spoken to the T to see if this is feasible. Mr. Marsh stated that MIT has discussed this with the T and the T has been receptive.

Councillor Kelley stated he values the historical building. He is disappointed that there is nothing new in the proposal about parking. He has yet to see a real definition of micro-housing.

Vice Mayor Simmons asked what the Chair is planning to do about the questions raised by the City Council; when will the questions be answered.

Councillor Maher asked Mr. Marsh about the micro-housing issue. Mr. Marsh stated that micro-housing units typically contain between 350-490 square feet. MIT is trying to fit it into the innovation space and create common areas. South Boston has micro-housing. Councillor Maher stated that there was a site in South Boston recently showing micro-units. The City Council may want to go look at these units. Councillor Maher stated that he may ask MIT to arrange for a tour of micro-units in South Boston. Councillor Maher asked where on campus you would look to expand or put graduate housing. Mr. Marsh responded that there are options in this PUD and elsewhere. Councillor Reeves, as Chair of the University Relations Committee, announced that the next tour of the universities will be a tour to MIT. Vice Mayor Simmons asked who is micro-housing being built for. Mr. Marsh stated that it is for people at the beginning of their career or at the end and are downsizing. It is new and evolving and
it belongs in Kendall Square at Innovation Landing on Broadway. Vice Mayor Simmons asked if the 60 micro-units are for non students. Mr. Marsh stated that it would be market based housing for people interested in being in the Kendall Square area. Councillor Cheung stated that the more important issue for the micro-units is the cost; not the size. Councillor Reeves stated that micro-units are small and as expensive as market rate units. He stated that more information is needed from the Housing Division of CDD. Councillor Cheung stated that he had asked for the ratio of commercial to housing developments. He stated that the City Council should review transferable housing.

Mayor Davis applauded more housing. Micro-housing should be flexible and be set up to modularize so that if one can afford two units it can be done.

Councillor vanBeuzekom asked what the timeline on this petition is. Councillor Maher suggested that the petition be referred to the City Council, without recommendation, but keep the subject matter in committee. The petition expires on Apr 24, 2013 and there are three City Council meetings, Mar 11th, Mar 25th and Apr 15th, that are cancelled. He stated that he will schedule additional Ordinance Committee meetings on the petition. He asked MIT to have individual meeting with the City Councillors on Mar 14th and 15th in order to visit the site and ask questions. Staff from CDD would also be available. There will be at least one additional meeting in March. This would allow the City Council to entertain the petition. If the petition is not forwarded to the City Council the timeline cannot be met. Councillor Kelley stated that he would prefer to have a special meeting of the City Council rather than push the petition forward. Councillor Maher stated that this is just the procedural
process because of the cancelled meetings.

Councillor Reeves suggested a working study session facilitated with CDD staff because the City Council is making a judgment on the evolution of Kendall Square. He stated that the City Council cannot make a judgment when the information was received this evening. The City Council could use a working session without public comment. Vice Mayor Simmons agreed.

Mayor Davis made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the matter of the MIT zoning petition be referred to the full City Council, but the subject matter remain in committee.

Before a vote was taken on the motion made by Mayor Davis, a discussion ensued about scheduling a roundtable/working meeting of the Ordinance Committee and whether the roundtable/working meeting would be televised.

Councillor Toomey expressed his concerns about access to the Grand Junction path and collaboration between MIT and the Kennedy, Fletcher and Longfellow Schools. He wanted to see more partnership with the schools.

At 6:20pm Councillor Maher opened the meeting to public comment.

Christine Marcus, 350 Third Street, spoke about her company founded in Kendall Square. Eight jobs have been created in Kendall Square. She supported local business. Why is it only that innovation happens in Kendall Square? The innovation and entrepreneurial system in Kendall Square is second to none and supports collaboration and ideas. It increases small business to move to Kendall Square in small retail space. MIT proposal will increase retail space.

Sal Lupoli, 150 Tremont Street, stated that he is MIT alum. He wanted to move his business to Kendall Square, but there is no space for his company in Kendall Square that is affordable. He employs 800 workers and hires locally in communities where his businesses are located. He favored moving the project forward.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 20 Willow Street, Chairman of A Better Cambridge, stated that MIT petition is productive contribution to socially, economically and responsible development in the city. The petition promotes a more sustainable growth towards a more diverse, livable and sustainable Cambridge. He is pleased that the plan increases the affordable and moderate housing. He spoke about the revenue stream. Community fund provides funds to neighborhood most affected by development. The most critical component is the workforce development. Community funding will be directed to workforce development, open space and transportation. This petition allows Kendall Square to be an area to work, live and play. He supported the MIT petition because of the benefits to the community.

Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street, stated that he wanted to see a new mixed use petition succeed. He still has concerns with the zoning. The institutional use of the property south of Main Street is a part of Kendall Square's success and is reflected in the underlying zoning. He spoke about the cost and benefits of eliminating this emphasis. He worries that commercial development will overwhelm the academic and institutional foundation of Kendall Square. He requested that institutional use provisions be considered such as graduate student housing and innovation space. He favored more innovation, less corporation. He is concerned with the open space; it is listed as publicly beneficial open space.

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, spoke about housing and loopholes. Loopholes still exists with Forest City. MIT has announced up to 365 housing units, including affordable and if Forest City invests in and sponsors 25 affordable units of housing at MIT Kendall and pays $15 million to MIT and becomes an investor in Kendall this takes care of Forest City's commitment for housing. If MIT takes the $15 million and invests in 300 Mass. Avenue (Forest City site) MIT includes the 25 units to show that they have complied with their commitment for affordable housing provision in the incentive zoning at Kendall. The $15 million is going in both directions and instead of 50 units of affordable housing we are only getting 25 because of this loophole that still exists. He stated that there are other loopholes in the Forest City and MIT proposal. The issue is time. He praised Councillor Maher for his work with the process. He stated that no one on the City Council, the Cambridge Redevelopment
Authority or Community Development Department has mentioned Article VII in an open hearing. He suggested holding a special Ordinance Committee meeting to discuss how to plug the loophole in Forest City and the Article 7 issue which deals with both Forest City and MIT. He stated that Anthony Galluccio, for MIT, James Rafferty for Forest City, City Solicitor Nancy Glowa and Jeffrey Mullan, Chief Counsel for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority should be at the meeting.

Lara Gordon, 289 Washington Street, stated that she is a realtor. She submitted a communication in support of the MIT petition. She stated that prices are going up and supply is going down and the demand is great. She loves Area 4 and she thinks it is the most economic vibrant community. Kendall Square is now improved and she is excited with MIT plans; it is adding local retail and business and outdoor space. Banks opening in Central Square is not exciting to her. Kendall Square already has density and volume and brings life, revenue and business to Cambridge. She stated that Cambridge has low property taxes. Somerville is trying to bring industry in and is trying to imitate Kendall Square.

Tim Rowe, CIC, 64 Gorham Street, stated that the plan before you has taken 2 years to put together. There are 100 people in Cambridge who work together to get things done. Kendall Square is different than Somerville. Cambridge has something different - there is an energy here that is nowhere else. This proposal allows this unique area to thrive and realize its potential. The public process has lead to a good balance. If innovation were left out he would support this petition because this is the right proposal for Kendall Square. Development should be done in the center of the innovation world.

Chris Kasdorf, Fifth Street, stated that he started a company called Intepid Labs, a co-working company in Kendall Square. He now has 100 people using the space. There are no offices only conference rooms. The innovation is incredible. It is important to have this space. You want to have students stay in Kendall Square. He supported the 5% innovation space. It is vitally important to have this in Kendall Square. He stated that if there were a downturn in the economy it will be the innovators who will stay in the area.

Eileen Rudden, 32 Arlington Street, a member of high tech community, stated that she is an entrepreneur. There is a thriving Ed tech community. Technology is being built to support students and teachers. The cost of rental space in Kendall Square is unaffordable. She supported the innovation requirement. She spoke in favor of the 5% innovation space. Small, less expensive space is needed for those who want to be in Kendall Square.

Reed Sturtevant, 6 Dexter Road, Lexington, manages Techstar, stated that he worked in Kendall Square for 35 years. Business diversity must be kept in Kendall Square. . Innovation, flexibility and location and sharing common areas are important aspects for this area.

Nancy Ryan. 4 Ashburton Place, stated that the graduate student housing question was not answered. The pressures on Area Four are incredible for real estate inflation. Graduate students want to live near MIT. She is disturbed that the task force was established to study the graduate student housing problem when these commercial buildings are being proposed without addressing this problem. It is disturbing that the petition expires on Apr 24th and will be voted on by the City Council, but the report from the task force will not come until July. She stated that she wanted to hear more about workforce development because this is important to Area 4 residents who want to have meaningful work. There is no content to the workforce and transportation issue. About the gateway issue changing the head house to identify MIT; this is the eastern gateway to Cambridge.

Phyllis Breholtz, 65 Antrim Street, stated that her concern is the schools and the quality of life in Cambridge. She spoke about children enrolled in the schools and she gave statistics. There is a loss of 1876 student since 1998. If housing is planned for people at the beginning of their career, the units will be small and cannot accommodate families. She wants affordable housing for families who can raise families. The average ages of speakers tonight are not for whom these units are being built. If these units are being built for high tech people how are they contributing to the life of the City? She asked retail use for whom? There are no stores that are meeting the needs of those who live here.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, spoke on quality of life in Cambridge. The City sees itself as a green community, committed to sustainability and a vibrant place to live. She spoke about the re-industrialization of Kendall Square. The policy of the City officials is to increase the tax base to the extent that it is politically feasible. Neighborhoods have felt the blunt of development. She spoke about demographic changes with the decline of the schools and the end of rent control. The model does not show the penthouse because the roof top mechanicals are exempt from height and FAR requirements. She spoke about noise pollution and the fact that it is a health hazard that people have no control over their exposure. The Cambridge Noise Ordinance is inadequate. Sound travels from Kendall Square to Washington Elms and Area Four from the roof top mechanicals. Cumulative ambient noise is ignored.

Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street, stated that you can start out with innovation without it being defined. He does not understand the real estate jargon on innovation space. MIT inside represents innovation and innovators. Innovation space for the design of gadgets for the market is another issue. He read the 3 reports on the triple a bond rating. Where are we going to get the balance to make Cambridge a city? The eco system in which we live is not bounded. The heat load of this urban area affects the North Pole. There is no reason for Cambridge to grow bigger; it needs to stay where it is to stay the best.

Mike Connelly, 20 Harding Street, Secretary of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, stated that he was disappointed with the vote to refer the proposal to the City Council. He spoke in opposition to the MIT proposal because he does see why MIT is taking its campus resources to develop them for commercial use. It is wrong to build two corporate towers on the MIT campus. Why are we allowing MIT to develop its campus property to bring lab space here? He asked that the process be slowed down.

Brian Spatocco, 70 Pacific Street, President of the Graduate Student Body, spoke about the collaboration. On Feb 6 there was an institute-wide forum on the Kendall Square project held at MIT. There were 220 in attendance consisting of graduate, undergraduate and post doctorate students, faculty and administration. He listed the pros and cons from the student body. Pros: creates an innovation center next to MIT, improves eastern portion of the campus and creates a gateway and helps MIT's finances and helps the endowment grow. The Cons: limit MIT opportunity to expand, on campus corporate offices may interfere with the atmosphere; the students do not want a university park next to campus and lastly it will impact housing market.

Mark Jaquith, 213 Hurley Street, stated that Dave Dixon, facilitator of the K2C2 study spoke on housing units in the thousands. He stated there is room for growth with the housing units offered by MIT. A 300 foot housing tower at One Broadway is a place where there is a nice amenity of the boardwalk at the Board Canal. He stated that the land south of Main Street is the best place to put height and density. He did a rough draft of the shadow study of the effect on the boardwalk and boat land at the Broad Canal. The existing condition and alternative which should be talked about which is putting all the housing and density on the site they would like; there will be issue with Chapter 91. There is no reason why a modification cannot be created that all can support that will not shade the boat landing.

Julian Cassa, 109 Windsor Street, stated that the number one concern of the Area 4 leadership is a master-plan. He has not seen a master-plan. More housing should be added. The timeline is short to make a decision on a large project. He wanted an extension of the timeline and wanted to see a master-plan and wanted to see housing placed elsewhere, not just in Kendall Square. Community benefits and dialogue; there has been no dialogue with Area 4 on this project. There have been no implied or specific benefits. He would like a dialogue with MIT about the area concerns and on issues that could be negotiated. On parking, transportation, traffic and safety issues - nothing has been done to address the growth. Retail concerns - it has to be a mix. His concern is the traffic and parking data. Serious decisions are not made without data.

Gary Dmytryk, 2440 Mass. Avenue, President, Association for Cambridge Neighborhoods, stated that this is a historic opportunity by crafting a new vision for Kendall Square through the K2C2 process. The goals are great, but will not be easy. He spoke about the proposed 2 million square feet of new construction. MIT needs a new front door to say that this is MIT. He suggested getting rid of the street and directing traffic onto Ames Street and creating a pedestrian plaza on Main Street from Ames Street to Point Park. There is not a lot of vehicular use on this part of Main Street. A real square should be put in Kendall Square. He stated that sacrificing the old historic buildings should be considered. MIT should be given maximum flexibility to create a grander eastern gateway, a new front door to the MIT campus that works. He request neighborhood and community groups to reconsider their opposition to tall buildings on academic campus and give unlimited FAR to MIT to build housing for
students and staff.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that the ECPT has never voted on this proposal in support as stated in the Planning Board recommendation. She commented on Section 13.810.1 relating to signs. The sign provision of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance applies to all portions of the city except the MXD district. This should not be in the petition; get rid of this. General provisions apply generally unless exempted. She complained about the analysis done by the MIT proponents on housing. The 39 % of graduate students housed on campus - what does the 39% mean and who does it represent. There may be a reduction of students due to sequestration. A discussion is needed on the impact of the sequestration. She spoke about the Koch and the Broad Institute - the City Council voted on the proposal with promises that were not kept.

Kathy Hoffman, 67 Pleasant Street, stated that this is an opportunity to keep post graduates in Cambridge. This is about commercial development and about innovation feeding frenzy. She asked what the City Council's purpose is. MIT should have responsibility to its own internal population to house its students. Housing graduates students is key; if this housing is not provided the students go into the neighborhood and rents rise. If the affordable housing is in the tower and it is micro-units it is not for members of the community. She would like 240 square feet of housing broken down in terms of actual housing. If there are fewer parking spaces there will be fewer cars - this is not correct. If there are no commercial parking spaces people park in the neighborhoods. She spoke about the demographics and the fact that it is not integrated into Cambridge. What is the relationship to Cambridge is an important conversation. She urged the City Council to let this petition expire.

Patrick Magee, operates Atlas Tavern at 877 Cambridge Street, President of the East Cambridge Business Association stated that way finding has been an issue in Kendall Square. He support for the MIT proposal.

Fred Salvucci, teaches civil engineering at MIT, 6 Leicester Street, Brighton, stated his recommendation that the City Council include strong conditionality about density. He hopes that the housing study is productive, but this will not come until July. He cautioned the City Council about approving something before it comes. He was proudest of his work with city officials against the Inner Belt. Where does the economic opportunity at Kendall Square come from? James Sullivan, City Manager, insisted on a parking freeze in Kendall Square. The student housing needs have been dumped on adjacent neighborhoods. The deficit in student housing is over 5,000 students and faculty. This is a long range problem for MIT. The MIT housing study will focus on the MIT position. This is not just a matter for MIT it is also a matter for Cambridge. There needs to be 5000 housing units for students and this should be at the front end of the process.

Richard Goldberg, 170 Harvard Street, stated that at the February meeting of Area 4 Coalition a motion was passed requesting that the City Council not grant up zoning in Kendall Square to MIT. He stated that he thought the mission of MIT was education and that any commercial use of the property would not conform with the mission. Area 4 is concerned because MIT students and staff live in Area 4 and add to the pressure of rental units in the area and increase rents. He urged the City Council not to grant any zoning until the City Council understands the impact on the city. A master-plan is needed.

Charlie Marquardt, 10 Rogers Street, stated that MIT has been good to retail because they actually let you rent small space. The housing at One Broadway will be 20% affordable and moderate income housing. First question do we need more graduate student housing? If housing is needed where it will be put, does it need to be in Kendall Square or can it go somewhere else.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, submitted 4 documents from the Boston Globe. He asked the City Council not to give up on its leverage. He asked if the view of the clock tower on all four sides will be blocked by the two new towers. Building on the conditionality of the housing obligation he urged the City Council to have measurable benchmarks included for graduate student housing and for the public transportation infrastructure. MIT should help to improve the public infrastructure in Kendall Square. He suggested linkage between what is allow in Kendall Square and what is in Central Square, especially transferable development rights should be explored more fully. Community benefits do not trickle down to the community. These benefits should be decided and determined by the community, not by MIT.

Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street, passed out a chart outlining production numbers of dorms. The chart covered the period 1999 - 2012 for selected universities 2012. Boston dealt with student housing. Over 12,000 on campus student housing new development units were created in twelve years because it was identified as a problem in Boston. At MIT only 20% of graduate student are housed on campus. He urged City not approve this petition unless new graduate student housing will be built.

Barbara Broussard stated that she was the community representative from East Cambridge on K2 advisory committee. The East Cambridge Planning Team and members of the K2 advisory group worked with CBT on a viable plan for Main Street. She stated the theme is parks, homes and shops. A better Main Street on both sides is wanted by East Cambridge. She stated that housing is an important component. There has to be more residence to support the neighborhood activity. There was also support for the need for graduate student housing. At the end of the MIT housing study MIT will be able to take the appropriate actions. She stated that graduate housing does not have to be in Kendall Square; there are other MIT properties where housing can be built. She stated that the East Cambridge community worked hard on the Broad Canal and believes that the building on the south side will have value. She understands the need for the shadow study. It is important that there is activity on both sides of the
canal. The "pearl necklace" is essential to unifying the neighborhoods abutting this area. Wellington-Harrington would like a part of the "pearl necklace" and an entrance into their neighborhood.

Charlie Teague, 23 Edmonds Street, stated that the proposal is premature, jumping in front of the K2C2 process. If there is a master plan with a transportation plan and affordable housing plan much better decisions could be made. This is a great opportunity because MIT wants a lot of things. He spoke on housing. The most affordable housing in Cambridge is what already exists. He stated that MIT has to build housing for 6,000 of its students. If all the students are in campus housing the housing will be protected for families. He submitted a communication urging the City Council to stand up to the MIT Industrial Complex.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that she wished the City required that all up-zoning plans had to show what could be achieved with the existing zoning fully built out compared with what is being proposed. Without this comparison there is a bias with the up-zoning process. Most of MIT proposal could be achieved under the current zoning. MIT petition is premature because the K2 recommendations have not been adopted by the City Council. She would prefer the housing plan proposed by the ECPT which was double the housing. The City Council should let the petition expire and settle the housing issue. The community benefits process has not been decided by the City Council. She stated that the $10.00 per foot is too low. MIT had committed this land for academic.

Rudy Belliardi, Wellington-Harrington stated that MIT was good with their outreach to the community. He stated that the neighborhood is looking for a good match. The neighborhood will look better.

At 8:26pm Councillor Cheung made a motion to close public comment.

The Interim City Clerk read the communication submitted by Councillor Decker into the record.

Councillor Maher stated that communications received by the City Council and the City Clerk would be made part of the record,

Caroline Jones, 22 Meadow Way, supported the petition.

Jonathan King, requested that the petition be amended to restrict new construction to direct academic, research and educational needs and to include graduate student housing.

Chris Matthews, 26 Sixth Street, supporting the MIT petition.

Councillor vanBeuzekom requested that the Community Development Department provide the City Council with a table of what is allowed under the current zoning and what is proposed by the MIT petition. She asked MIT for subsequent presentations if under each page reference where it appears in the petition or the section numbers.

Councillor Maher thanked all those present for their attendance.

The meeting adjourned at 8:45pm on motion of Councillor vanBeuzekom.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair

AWAITING REPORT LIST
12-20. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on what steps the City will take to help the general public keep track of awaiting maintenance issues on things like park equipment, graffiti, sidewalks, etc.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Decker, Councillor Cheung, Mayor Davis, Councillor Maher, Vice Mayor Simmons & Councillor Toomey 02/13/12 (O-4)

12-29. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the no left turn on the Cambridge Common and to remove the bicycle prohibition on certain streets, such as Whittemore Avenue. Referred back for additional information on 3/5/2012.
Councillor Kelley 02/13/12 (O-17)

12-64. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on current status of the Inlet Bridge and what steps the City can take to ensure that agreements with the Commonwealth are upheld.
Councillor Toomey and Full Membership 05/21/12 (O-1)

12-75. Report from the City Manager: See Mgr #4
RE: report on the feasibility of providing a map of long term parking spots for rent on the city website.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 06/04/12 (O-16)

12-78. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on expanding the number of Cambridge parks/playing fields with public toilets. Referred back to the City Manager on 6/18/12 on motion of Councillor Kelley.
Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 06/11/12 (O-5)

12-81. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on meeting with No. Mass Avenue neighbors, businesses and neighborhood groups about whether additional alterations to the median strip would be appropriate.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 06/11/12 (O-9)

12-87. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the potential uses of the Foundry Building.
Councillor Toomey 06/04/12 (O-19)

12-91. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the installation of lower and decorative lighting along Cardinal Medeiros Avenue.
Councillor Toomey and Full Membership 07/30/12 (O-6)

12-104. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on data requested on the Andrews Petition during an Ordinance Committee hearing last term that has not yet been received.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 07/30/12 (O-34)

12-105. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on answering questions regarding the Foundry Building in order to move the community process forward.
Councillor Cheung & Councillor Toomey 07/30/12 (O-35)

12-107. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the number of Cambridge residents that are working as part of organized labor on development projects along with the percentage of minority and women members and what sort of communication takes place with the Rindge School of Technical Arts and local Unions.
Councillor Toomey and Full Membership 09/10/12 (O-14)

12-108. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on applying and participating in the Cities of Services program.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 09/10/12 (O-19)

12-109. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on what strategies other cities have used to dissuade land-banking.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 09/10/12 (O-21)

12-115. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on making accommodations for voters when elevators are not working or there are other barriers at polling locations on election days. Referred back for additional information by Councillor Decker on 10/22/2012. Further report provided and referred back by Councillor Decker on 11/5/2012.
Councillor Decker, Mayor Davis, Councillor Maher, Councillor Reeves, Vice Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toomey & Councillor vanBeuzekom 09/24/12 (O-6)

12-126. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of ensuring all city sponsored committee hearings (such as the E-gov committee) are available online.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 11/05/12 (O-6)

12-135. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on preparing an ordinance regulating procedures that organizations would have to follow in the event of a concussion.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 11/19/12 (O-13)

12-136. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on a plan of action to reinforce and secure restaurant bins in a way that separates food waste for composting.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 11/19/12 (O-14)

12-137. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on an analysis of the entire past election of wait times and strategies for what would be necessary to reduce wait times to less than 10 minutes and on making information available on wait times at polling locations throughout the day. Referred back for more information by Councillor Decker on 12/17/2012.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor vanBeuzekom, Mayor Davis, Councillor Decker, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Maher, Councillor Reeves, Vice Mayor Simmons & Councillor Toomey 11/19/12 (O-16)

12-140. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on special permit process pursuant to MGL 40A as it relates to the impact of re-filing a zoning petition on pending special permits for special permits that have been granted.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 11/19/12 (O-9)

12-150. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on convening a task force to look into the creation of providing permanent public restrooms at high volume locations such as public parks and squares.
Mayor Davis 12/10/12 (O-16)

12-152. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on establishing a reduced small business parking rate for local business owners at city garages.
Councillor Toomey and Full Membership 12/17/12 (O-1)

12-153. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on ways to ban tandem tractor-trailers from entering the city with a view in mind of requiring large freight vehicles of a certain size to transfer freight to a smaller vehicle before entering the city.
Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 12/17/12 (O-4)

12-154. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the sale of the Sullivan Courthouse including what zoning changes will be needed and reasons for Leggat McCall being chosen as the developer.
Councillor Toomey 12/17/12 (O-9)

13-04. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the City's plans for the property located at 205 Western Avenue.
Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 01/14/13 (O-6)

13-06. Report from the City Manager: See Mgr #3
RE: report on conferring with the appropriate departments to initiate a plan of action setting up a procedure for future construction projects, especially for older buildings that may contain hazardous materials.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 01/14/13 (O-8)

13-09. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on improving logistical challenges of deliveries and trash removal to and from businesses as they related to adjacent residents.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 01/14/13 (O-11)

13-15. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on meeting with NSTAR officials to establish a firm timeline for maintenance and replacement plans for the transformers and electrical systems that serve the city to ensure that local businesses and residential communities are fully serviced.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor Reeves and Full Membership 02/11/13 (O-5)

13-16. Report from the City Manager: See Mgr #14
RE: report on working with DCR to insure that oversize vehicles not be allowed to travel on Memorial Drive.
Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 02/11/13 (O-11)

13-17. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of implementing mobile applications related to snow removal and operations information.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-2)

13-18. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the possibility of voluntary participation of landlords and management companies of multifamily units to provide current and new tenants with a Voter Registration Form.
Councillor Cheung, Mayor Davis, Councillor Decker, Councillor Reeves, Vice Mayor Simmons & Councillor vanBeuzekom 02/25/13 (O-3)

13-19. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on refining procedures to uphold existing ordinances that prohibit the reservation of cleared on-street parking spaces by placing objects in the spots.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-4)

13-20. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of providing a service in which residents are able to look up their voter registration status online.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-5)

13-21. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of including voter registration forms in the annual census mailing.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-6)

13-22. Report from the City Manager: See Mgr #5
RE: report on developing a proposed plan of action to improve safety on the section of Memorial Drive that allows for legal parking which blocks the right lane.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-7)

13-23. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on why the Green Room Experience was denied its request to host a dance for CRLS teens at a youth center.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-10)

13-24. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on assessing the feasibility of necessity of utilizing the services provided by the Springfield Data Center and MassGIS's Oliver mapping tool.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-11)

13-25. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the details of the lawsuit with Idenix Pharmaceutical and on revising the noise ordinance.
Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-14)

13-26. Report from the City Manager: See Mgr #13
RE: report on reasons for the delay in appointing a new tenant representative to the CHA's Board of Commissioners.
Vice Mayor Simmons and Full Membership 02/25/13 (O-17)

13-27. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on providing an information packet relevant to the future of the Volpe Site. Information provided directly to City Council on 3/6/2013.
Councillor Cheung 02/25/13 (O-20)

13-28. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on applying for the Code for America Fellowship Program.
Councillor Cheung and Full Membership 03/04/13 (O-1)

13-30. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on a system for informing the public of the status of maintenance and repair issues for things such as park equipment, graffiti, sidewalk hazards, and so forth, potentially including iReport.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 03/04/13 (O-5)

13-32. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on what flooding, drainage, sightline, maintenance and traffic flow issues exist at Linear Park and who is responsible for addressing them.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 03/04/13 (O-7)

13-33. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the possibility of adding a RSS feed options to all of the City's websites.
Councillor vanBeuzekom and Full Membership 03/04/13 (O-8)